Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The delayed marriage debate

One of the looming battles in the culture war is the issue of when to marry and have children. Feminists have urged women to stay independent of men; this hasn't, in general, led women to reject the idea of marriage and motherhood outright. It has, though, encouraged the trend for women to defer family formation until some time in their 30s.

But this creates a number of problems including the following:

women lose reproductive choice. If women only attempt to marry and have children in the final, declining years of their fertility, they may well miss out on having the children they want

if women aren't serious about marriage or children in their 20s, then they are more likely to select the "wrong" sort of men - the bad boys, the narcissists, the thugs etc. This then discourages the family man ethos amongst men and encourages a player culture. Numbers of men who might have made good husbands will drop out altogether.

when women do start taking family formation seriously in their 30s, they are more likely to find it difficult to meet suitable men. Some men will already have married, others will have dropped out and some will be players. The women themselves will no longer be at the peak of their youthful fertility and attractiveness to men and they might well be less able to pair bond due to the number of casual relationships already entered into.

all of this combined is likely to encourage a more cynical and adversarial culture of relationships between men and women

men and women will not be able to gift each other their youthful passions and they will be considerably older and more infirm as grandparents

Feminists are mostly winning this battle in the culture war. However, there do exist opposing voices, warning of the problems created by leaving things so late, such as the BBC Radio DJ, Lauren Laverne:

BBC radio presenter Lauren Laverne has criticised the growing culture of ‘freemales’ who choose an independent life over having a husband and family.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Lauren Laverne

﻿﻿﻿﻿

The 32-year-old BBC 6 Music host says women who delay having a family in their twenties risk never finding ‘a sense of completion’.

Despite initially being seen as a ‘ladette’, the ex-pop singer married when she was 27 and had her first child, Fergus, two years later. She gave birth to her second son, Mack, in September last year. Her husband is DJ Graeme Fisher.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

But she admits her decision to start a family is in stark contrast to her friends who are not interested in settling down until they are 35.

﻿﻿

‘I was getting married when none of my friends even lived with their boyfriends, and then I had Fergus,’ she told Red Magazine.

‘It’s great that you get to be young for longer, but the downside is people worry too much. If you’re with the right person, do it, get married, have the baby, take a leap of faith. You can’t plan everything, you can’t wait and wait and wait.

﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

‘The nice thing now is that I have a sense of completion about my family and the future. You can only really get that when you crack on when you’re young.’

Her friends are being foolish. They are not willing to settle down until they are 35 - exactly the age at which a woman's fertility starts to peter out. They are not even making relationship commitments in their late 20s.

Lauren Laverne is not alone in speaking out against trends toward delayed marriage. Two American researchers, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker of the University of Texas, have recently published their findings on the state of play in relationships between young Americans. One of their conclusions is that women, by delaying a serious commitment to relationships, are creating a player culture amongst men, which then undermines women's desires later on to find a committed relationship:

Researchers found that since women in the 18- to 23-year-old group feel they don't need men for financial dependence, many of them feel they can play around with multiple partners without consequence, and that the early 20s isn't the time to have a serious relationship. But eventually, they do come to want a real, lasting relationship. The problem is that there will still be women who will have sex readily without commitment, and since men know this, fewer of them are willing to go steady.

"Women have plenty of freedom, but freedom does not translate easily into getting what you want," Regnerus said.

This issue was even openly discussed in the usually liberal Salon magazine. There was a very respectful interview with the two researchers about the issue of women having "lost control" of relationships, with increasing numbers of women reporting about modern relationships that "I don't like this script, it sucks." One of the researchers gave this advice:

I don't think it's in women's interest to play the field for a long period of time. It can get depressing, not only about their relationships but to see the pool of men in their 30s who are available. My advice is if you find somebody who you love and who loves you, make it work...

...Women need to somehow reacquire control over the direction of relationships. They feel like they don't have control.

Women who have been brought up to believe that independence is what matters most won't easily warm to the idea of marrying earlier. One woman's comment in reply to the two American researchers was that,

It strikes me as the typical fear tactics used to keep women's ambitions and autonomy in check because many men don't have the personal skills to succeed in equal partnership.

She ain't budging.

Some of the late marriage camp are also picking up on a statistic which claims that women with college education, their own income and who marry later are less likely to divorce. So you get comments like this one:

A woman is in the best position to avoid divorce if she is college-educated (the more the better), has her own income, and she marries no sooner than age 25. Women who fit this description have a very, very small likelihood of finding themselves in divorce court - WELL under national averages.

So this begs the question... is the goal for women to GET married, or to STAY married? Personally, I'm voting for the latter.

It's not that waiting until your mid-20s to marry is necessarily wrong. Some people don't mature into their adult personalities until this age. But the argument is sometimes used to justify a "wait until you're in your 30s and have done the whole education/career thing" position. So I do want to point out that the divorce rate difference between those who marry in their early 20s and those who marry in their late 20s doesn't seem to be that great. It's those who marry as teenagers who clearly have a higher divorce rate.

If you look at the following chart it shows that those women who married at less than 18 years of age had the highest rate of divorce; those who married at 18 and 19 had the next highest; those who married at 21 to 25 initially had the next highest but in the long run did the best; whilst those who married from 25 to 29 did the best in the early years of marriage but over time ended up with a higher divorce rate than those who married in their early 20s.

The lesson from this data set is that marrying below the age of 20 does significantly increase the risk of divorce for a woman, but marrying at 23 involves no greater risk than marrying at 29.

The Spearhead situation is tricky. Ideally I'd like to work alongside these guys. I'll have to consider how to respond to the article you're referring to. I'd also like to understand better what's driving some of the Spearhead writers to attack social conservatism.

These guys are not newbies. They've been around. They've experienced feminist dominated societies. They've experienced the marginalisation of social conservatives.

So why would they come up with an analysis that makes of social conservatism a powerful culprit? One that overshadows the influence of feminism?

It's particularly confusing given that the article you refer to has a socially conservative flavour itself.

I watched two minutes of "the circle" today, which is our equivalent of "the view". They were complaining about an Australian newspaper headline which referred to the new female premier of Tasmania as single and "looking for Mr Right". The complaint was that the foucs should have been on her career accomplishments and not her marital status. Not all women have to exist to look for "Mr Right" etc.

This celebration of female independence is all well and good, but presumably you will want to marry one day. Good luck.

I also watched Kerry Anne for a little bit (ok I suck). Kerry Anne is significantly older and wiser and far more conservative, and she subtly put down the "New York relationship expert" who was arguing that motherhood shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all of being a woman. That embracing motherhood has the potential to lead us to "give up the modern advances" etc. Of course the relationship/parenting expert was divorced. They all are.

These female writers strike me as delusional. I note first that it's all men's fault: if men won't "commit" it's because they're players, men don't have personal skills, women with their own money can avoid divorce. These are all easy to demolish.

The first completely ignores what women themselves do. Apparently what women do or say should have no effect on how men view them in their 30s and 40s. Perhaps being ignored in their 20s makes most guys rather bitter in their 30s.

The second is outright slander and can be ignored.

The third flies in the face of the fact that the vast majority of divorces are filed by women. If women want to avoid divorce, women should stop filing for it.

So why would they come up with an analysis that makes of social conservatism a powerful culprit? One that overshadows the influence of feminism?

Most of the conservatives have abandoned the Spearhead, so the articles have leaned more MGTOW or libertine since then. There used to be a very pronounced patriarchal wing there, but now it's mostly men who espouse neither feminism nor traditionalism; just hedonism or isolationism. If your goal is to be left alone, or to be allowed to do as you like, conservatives are arguably more of an enemy than feminists.

The Spearhead's views of social conservatives seem to revolve around the perception that social conservatives force traditional mores on men in a changed social situation. With the social contract between men and women broken, this results in men accepting all the traditional responsibilities and liabilities without the benefits. In this viewpoint, feminism and social conservatism constitute the one-two punch to men: feminism removes the benefits while social conservatism continues to impose the liabilities.

Faced with this breakdown, there are two basic options: abandon tradition and reject liabilities without benefits; or work to re-establish the social order with both benefits and responsibilities. The Spearhead is in the first camp, while you appear to be in the latter.

I support the latter approach as well, as I think the first leads to chaos.

''So why would they come up with an analysis that makes of social conservatism a powerful culprit? One that overshadows the influence of feminism?''

It's basically because they are liberals and find traditional conservatism revolting. They have become so delusional they actually believe the few traditional conservatives have great power. That's how liberalism operates. See any consequences of liberalism and switch the blame to the evil few powerless non-existent traditional conservatives instead of liberalism itself. I'd say they will become completely liberal again sooner or later and the MRA will disband itself. Why? You reject one strand of liberalism while accepting liberalism as a worldview and sooner or later you will become liberal completely once again. See the way liberals blame the violence and other things done by immigrants or 'racial minorities' on Europeans or Christians or whatever? See how liberals blame Islamic terrorism on America and believe America to be ''just as bad'' or like the Taliban? See how liberals blame divorce on traditional conservatives? See how liberals blame the coming failing of science occuring in the last few decades on creationism (and the hysterial Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc) when clearly +90% of science is under the power of the philosophies of the ''Enlightement'', evolution/change/progress and Darwinism? See how seeing the taking over of Muslims in Europe they react to the (literally) non-existent powerless neo-Nazis? See how they reacted to George W. Bush as Hitler and a great ultra-right winger? Never mind George W. Bush was a right-liberal and a neoconservative. He wanted to spread democracy, capitalism and freedom to the world. He wasn't a traditional conservative. Yet they went insane.

Liberals either:

1 - Say there is no such thing as right or wrong2 - Shift and project the failure of liberalism on traditional conservatism3 - And other things

Look what happened to LGF (Little Green Footballs). They only rejected one strand of liberalism and sooner or later turned completely liberal once again. They abandoned their anti-Muslim stance and sooner or later started called anti-Islamic critics Nazis, racists, bigots and so forth. Look for this to happen Mark Richardson to the MRM/MRA in the next few years.

The only viable and effective opposition to liberalism is one that rejects the principles of liberalism and it's worldview. Among them include:

And, how much of this would be due to the fact that such a woman would tend to find herself in the traditionally male position of having a lot more to lose (financially) in a divorce – as opposed to actually making for a stable, happy, and fulfilling marriage for them?

Wavevector - ”Faced with this breakdown, there are two basic options: abandon tradition and reject liabilities without benefits; or work to re-establish the social order with both benefits and responsibilities. The Spearhead is in the first camp, while you appear to be in the latter.

I support the latter approach as well, as I think the first leads to chaos.”

Hum? Interesting. So, tell me again how you intend to achieve the latter?

Oh, I suppose I should include “[/snark]” with that last question as well, since this has proven to be the great mystery that Trads don’t really answer.

Major pile of BS! Most of us are strictly anti-Socialism, anti-Feminism, and either quite conservative or libertarian. This type of ignorance you display is only increasing the divide.

The cold hard reality that you folks refuse to accept is that you haven’t got any realistic way to “get back” to society-wide traditional values and mores. You’re mostly just, in the words of the Pink Floyd song, ”hanging on in quite desperation”.

The other reality that seems to be too tough a pill for you all to swallow is that by actually seeking legislative reform, and by NOT rewarding woman who’ve chosen to make themselves un-worthy of marriage by the time they decide to “settle down” (and “settle” for some schmuck who can “provide” for them, even if they aren’t aroused by him) via refusing to enter into Marriage 2.0 contracts with them and the state, the MRA’s actually have a greater likelihood of making some headway towards “your” goals.

Read Mark’s essay above, and you can begin to see where the effects of PUA’s and MGTOW-types are starting to get the attention of those “empowered” women – they find that they can’t find “suitable” mates. This isn’t because of a return to “traditional values”, as proposed by Trads, but because of the all too predictable human responses to their choices, just as suggested by those in the MRM.

Alte - ”Most of the conservatives have abandoned the Spearhead, so the articles have leaned more MGTOW or libertine since then.”

While this is largely true, it’s not entirely so. Yes, the very bitter and resentful have joined with the hedonistically inclined to make the Spearhead less hospitable to traditional values (which, necessarily, embrace marriage as a desired state of male-female realtionships)

” If your goal is to be left alone, or to be allowed to do as you like, conservatives are arguably more of an enemy than feminists.”

You and Josh ‘Thordaddy” F. should compare notes.

Okay, just kidding on that one. I think even you will acknowledge that some women (a significant portion, in fact) have made themselves un-marriageable by their choice of lifestyles.

The logical outcome of this reality is that, if the consequences those woman must end up facing are going to be useful as (negative) examples for girls and young women, then it is going to be absolutely necessary for those men, who have not been so lucky as to find a worthy wife, to reject marriage to those unworthy women who remain.

But, to be just a bit more serious, you and Elizabeth Smith should definitely exchange notes. I’m wondering how you feel about her neo-racist ideas?

Mark Richards - ” So why would they come up with an analysis that makes of social conservatism a powerful culprit? One that overshadows the influence of feminism?”

The error here is that you are equating Traditionalism with Social Conservatism (see my response to you on the Laura Ingalls Wilder threads at The Spearhead).

In the US, the ranks of the Social Conservatives are comprised of all who self-identify themselves as being so. The only thing approaching a “litmus test” is that they be against abortion and gay marriage. The rest of the socio-political/religious landscape is a big “gray area”.

Again, I’ll throw this out – “Sarah Palin”

She is a self-identified (Assembly of God, fundamentalist) Christian Conservative who proclaims herself a feminist, and is clearly engaged in the ideals of “female empowerment” (not just in her own self promotion, but also in her guidance to her single-parent daughter).

She is far more the “norm” for American Social Conservatives. While they have some overlap with Traditionalist, they are fundamentally different in their socio-political goals, and well as in their highly feminized “gynocentric” theology, not to mention their twin penchants for female pedistalization and male bashing.

The only thing remotely patriarchal about them is that they still believe in male household “headship” (or, more accurately “figure-headship”), owing to male obligations and responsibility/culpability.

Elizabeth’s misunderstandings aside, they are, in many ways, far more liberal than are many MRA’s.

You might wish to reconsider your view that every sleight against SoCons is a sleight against Traditionalists. To most MRA’s SoCons are something far different than Traditionalist.

The aforementioned discussion thread regarding Laura Ingalls Wilder should be an example of just that.

slwerner - Glenn Beck is a Mormon and Sarah Palin is a fake Christian. They are both neoconservatives and right-liberals. They are libertarians.

Here is something from this website concerning what she symbolizes and not what she actually is --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018389.html

Sarah Palin is a social liberal and a capitalist. The only things she cares about are her books, freedom, the republic/democracy, capitalism, the TEA Party and her reality TV show. She's a libertarian.

I think even you will acknowledge that some women (a significant portion, in fact) have made themselves un-marriageable by their choice of lifestyles.

Of course. And you know I am the last one to try to hound men into marrying. But it's one thing to withdraw from the dating market in disgust or resignation, another to run rampant through it like a hyperactive toddler. A bit of self-control on the side of the adherents would go a long way to promoting the philosophy.

But, to be just a bit more serious, you and Elizabeth Smith should definitely exchange notes. I’m wondering how you feel about her neo-racist ideas?

You are feeling very naughty today, aren't you? First you tease me, and now you try to instigate a cat-fight. Tsk, tsk. Liz knows I'm one of the despised right-liberals (libertarian, to you), rather than a "traditional conservative", and she never ceases to remind me of it.

since this has proven to be the great mystery that Trads don’t really answer

That's because they don't like the possibilities. There are only three: political reform (which won't happen), withdrawing from society to hasten its collapse (which they can't stomach), or violence.

BTW, how did Laura try to support the family? Did she go out into the fields? No, she worked from home as a seamstress. The churches which teach that women belong at home also teach that they start a home business if money is needed.

Reading articles like the one on Spearhead peronally I get an idea that MRAS simply reject the traditional provider role for men.

Please read the word’s of the man who runs the much-despised Spearhead:

"We American men are providers. We are breadwinners. That’s our role. Take it away, and we have nothing to offer. It’s a cultural imperative so deeply ingrained in society that it will take decades to change, if it ever does. The tragedy of contemporary society is that we’ve done such a good job of it that we now provide for all women, and we are almost all unnecessary. The reason the upper middle class still has a low divorce rate is because the old roles work at a certain level of expectations — the well-paid doctor or attorney can provide enough above the norm to preserve his utility. But for the rest of us, we have nothing to offer but a shared domicile, and that’s paltry fare."

The “complaint”, if you will, is not the “breadwinner” role of men. Most MRA’s would happily embrace that part. What IS at issue is the new paradigms of “man as wallet” and “government as daddy/provider” than have now become the new norms.

This idea espoused here that MRA’s are all male-separatists who simply wish to eshew male responsibility is the “strawman”. If you’d actually bother to check into the MRM, you’d find many men, estranged from their children by the mother and the government desperately struggling (and spending small fortunes) to remain a part of those children’s lives. You’ll find single-parent fathers, abandoned by philandering ex-wives. Also, men “cleaned-out” by the divorce which blind-sided them, and men who’ve been the victims of paternity fraud, false allegations of DV, child abuse/molestation, and rape. You’ll find men who tried to do the right thing in getting married and raising a family, only to have it all pulled out from under them.

In short, the MRM is full of those who learned bitter lessons, yet who the likes of the SoCons have neither compassion for nor interest in. To the SoCons, because women have “rejected” them, they have no value. Yes, you get a lot of misogynistic ranting at places like the Spearhead. But, those few “loud mouths” aren’t representative of the wider MRM.

"Hum? Interesting. So, tell me again how you intend to achieve the latter?"

Probably in ways most MRAs would.

1) Starve the beast. Reverse legislation and cut funding that promotes female promiscuity, single motherhood, and hypergamy. Cut welfare to single mothers, alimony, child support, VAWA, affirmative action. Cut government size across the board, reducing the number of affirmative action make-work female jobs. Spend the money instead on infrastructure jobs that would employ blue-collar males.

2) Promote legislation that supports intact families and discourages divorce. Presumed shared custody would greatly raise the barrier for divorce for most women.

3) Roll back government interference in families, through VAWA, social services, etc.

4) Support economic policies which reduce economic inequality by increasing employment and wages among lower and middle class, as high inequality encourages female hypergamy.

I have been attending meetings of the local "tea party", and while I don't agree with all their agenda, I think their core principles of a small and constitutional government are consistent with MRA objectives.

Will this be successful in combating the breakdown of the social contract? Don't know, but it's worth a fight.

I would add that many on this site seem to not understand that the MRM and MRA's are not synonymous with the entire "Manosphere"

Men's rights "Activists" are those who are the "reformers" seeking legislative changes, while the PUA's are the hedonists looking to capitalize on the female sexuality unleashed by feminism, and MGTOW are the "separatists" who wish to eschew the "sluts" they find to be the only women who they can hope to have any sexual/relationship access to.

Id Sarah Palin a Socially Conservative Christian? She sure says that she is, but some here are rejecting HER self-identification.

On the other hand, Roissy has never try to portray himself as either an MRA nor as a "separatist". Yet, here, the distinct likes of Roissy, MarkyMark, Bill Price, and Glenn Sacks are viewed as one homogeneous entity - the MRA.

Note to Thordaddy - "homogeneous" is not the same thing as "homo genius" ("smart fag", for your juvenile amusement). Look it up before embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous - ”So which is it, do MRAs wish to return to the traditional roles for both men and women or do they want to abolish them alltogether. I'm confused.”

Yes, it seems you are confused…by what an MRA is, anyway.

An MRA is one who is an Advocate for the rights and protections of men (including their rightful roles as husbands and fathers) and/or an Activist, working towards such goals.

Not everyone who comments at sites like the Spearhead are actually MRA’s. Thus, you get a wide variety of views being expressed. An MRA, like myself is first, and foremost, for active change (this is the particular point of departure from SoCons, who have been silent WTR men’s issues, and even frustration with some of their more counter-productive efforts – actually supporting misandric laws and exacerbating the problems by pedistalizing women.)

Myself, I support the choices of the MGTOW guys, like MarkyMark, and while I don’t support the goals of the PUA’s like Roissy, I do learn from them, never-the-less.

On the personal side, I’m a long-term married guy (27 years), whose raise three children, and who, long before it came to be known as “Game” was able to employ some it’s core concepts to save and salvage my own marriage from a difficult situation. In many ways, my personal views would line up with individually diverse views of (to drop a few more names, emblematic of the diversity with the Manosphere) Dave from Hawaii, Athol Kay, the Elusive Wapiti, and Dalrock.

"and while I don’t support the goals of the PUA’s like Roissy, I do learn from them, never-the-less."

Same here. The concepts of female hypergamy and sexual response to male dominance are useful in understanding a lot of things in society that extend far beyond the interests of most PUAs.

I am also a long time married man with 3 children. When I first encountered "Game" in my readings a few years back, I too realized that I had discovered its principles through trial and error in my own marriage.

"I’d be happy to return to traditional roles, but short of that (long-shot), I’m looking for greater equity between the sexes, and more “equality” in the application of laws."

I think these go hand in hand. The erosion of traditional roles is due in large part to laws which promote the unilateral autonomy of women at the expense of men, as I've learned from reading Mark and others. More true legal equality for men would reduce the incentives for women to remove men from the family that exist today, and thereby would support more traditional roles.

Elizabeth Smith - ”There is no such thing as total equality between men and women slwerner”

You don’t have to re-read every thing I posted, just the part you quoted.

I (obviously) never suggested “total equality”. I know full wellthat men and women are different. What I did state was (again), ”… greater equity between the sexes, and more “equality” in the application of laws.''

I’ll break it down, since you don’t seem to understand.

“Equity” – this would be both a more fair distribution of rights and responsibilities, even if the specifics for each are widely divergent; and more or less equal access to opportunities, including in childhood education.

“Equal” application of laws would apply both to family law and criminal law. Men should have equal rights in terms of division of assets and child custody, and should enjoy the same legal protections of presumptive innocence when accused of crimes (by women).

How you “spun” total equality between men and women out of that, I’ll just have to guess;)

Hello, Liz. I think swlerner was hoping we'd get the mud-pit out and give him a bit of a show. LOL.

Not everyone who comments at sites like the Spearhead are actually MRA’s.

That's true. But some of the hedonists are associated with the Spearhead as authors, not commenters.

Sarah is a definite so-con. She's the so-con poster-girl, in fact, which is why I can't stand her. There's a bit of a translation-issue going on here, I suspect. Traditionalist conservatives aren't necessarily so-cons, or vice-versa. I suspect that most of the people who would (if they lived in Australia) tend to be trad-cons, end up libertarians in America because of our political heritage.

If you had, you would have seen over-whelming respect and admiration for Laura Ingalls Wilder, and women of her ilk.

Saying LIW was a good wife is like saying Newton was good at math. It might be true, but it's such an extreme example that it isn't very relevant to most people. The Manosphere is rife with this romanticized view of women past, which I suspect is merely their pedestalizing instincts leaking out past their guards.

Espousing the male-breadwinner/female-homemaker model doesn't negate the fact that one might have to spring in for the other, when necessary. Obviously, a married couple is a team, and each does what they have to do to keep the family moving forward. But using dramatic exceptions to campaign against the general rule is transparent. The message is clear: Women are no longer such rugged homemakers, so why should we be breadwinners?

And the idea that she's "morally superior" to modern women, based upon her actions in a different time and place, is also faulty logic. Yes, she stayed when he was ill, but then... she probably had no other choice. The fact that she didn't take the easy way out is only proof of her virtue if there is no easy way out.

Do you really think she would have stayed and nearly starved and froze to death in an isolated cabin with no windows, if she could have just left him and gotten a welfare payment? Would he have even wanted her to stay? How do we know this, merely by looking back at historical documents? The author of the piece appears to realize that, but the commentariat seems oblivious. The comment thread is full of "they don't make 'em like that anymore" comments.

They do make 'em like that, actually. They always make it sound like marriage is a cake-walk for women, and that all women win some sort of lottery and a ticket to the "easy life" when they marry. This is not necessarily true, and I've seen enough women slog through hard times to know that.

Alte - "The Manosphere is rife with this romanticized view of women past"

Which is different from the Trad-Con romanticizing about traditional society because...?

I get what you're saying WRT time, place, and oppurtunity; yet, there are still striking contrast between traditional women today and their skanky, entitled sisters.

I'd bet some of the most embittered misogynists over at the Spearhead would be falling all over themselves to a woman like Hestia, should they ever be fortunate enough to encounter one.

What I'm getting at is that some of the most hateful sounding stuff is coming from men who've either been screwed-over, or who have been passed-over by women, and who are not-so-secretly longing for a good woman (like guys like them might have been able to find just a few decades ago).

slwerner, thank you for answering my question. If that is MRAs' objectives, I agree with them.

Laura Ingalls was feminist to some point since she refused to say the original "love, honour and obey" part of the marriage vow, it was described in one of the books where she said she couldn't obey a man against her beter judgement.

Also while extolling her vistue, let's not forget about her father. In one of the books he walks 200 miles without boots to find a job and then works 14 hours a day while his wife stays home. They don't make men like this any more, it seems:)

wavevector:"1) Starve the beast. Reverse legislation and cut funding that promotes female promiscuity, single motherhood, and hypergamy. Cut welfare to single mothers, alimony, child support, VAWA, affirmative action. Cut government size across the board, reducing the number of affirmative action make-work female jobs. Spend the money instead on infrastructure jobs that would employ blue-collar males.

2) Promote legislation that supports intact families and discourages divorce. Presumed shared custody would greatly raise the barrier for divorce for most women.

3) Roll back government interference in families, through VAWA, social services, etc.

4) Support economic policies which reduce economic inequality by increasing employment and wages among lower and middle class, as high inequality encourages female hypergamy."

This all sounds good to me.

The above comments about how MRAs hate "so-cons" not "traditionalists" were interesting and informative, and made me feel much less hostile to the MRAs. There seems to be potentially a lot of MRA/trad overlap. Both recognise that these changes would benefit men; trads also emphasise benefit to society and to women.

I think there are places where trads might go beyond MRAs. Eg in divorce, MRAs argue for equal treatment along classical-liberal lines, men & women having equal rights over their children, as is common in continental Europe.

Whereas I'm sympathetic to the traditionalist argument that by default children should go to the man, unless he is demonstrably at fault - and an end to no-fault divorce, of course. Just on a utilitarian argument, children seem to do much better with single-fathers than with single-mothers.

Which is different from the Trad-Con romanticizing about traditional society because...?

It's not different, and it bothers me either way.

What I'm getting at is that some of the most hateful sounding stuff is coming from men

Yes, I know. I also have been around long enough to notice that these guys never stop spewing their hateful stuff. They positively wallow in their hate. You must forgive some women in the Manosphere -- many of whom have dealt with men just as awful as their women -- from growing weary of offering sympathies and condolences.

As if all women were living lives in a bed of roses, where they spend all day shopping and playing with their perfect children, while waiting for their wealthy, alpha husband to return from his 9-5 job. Nice work, if you can get it.

The funny thing while reading this thread, is the manner in which a most important fact has been passed over so lightly. There is the Mens Movement, there is the MGTOW movement, there is the PUA analysis of female behaviour, and there are groups such as 'traditionalists' which compose what has become known as "The Manosphere".

What I as an MRA have as my greatest criticism of 'trads' is your wholesale lack of effectiveness. And that is based on your reliance on wishful thinking, rather than a concrete plan. You want a "return to family values" but you have no idea how to get there, or how to BEGIN to try and convince other people.

So you grab your Bibles and commence pounding.

How's that working out for ya? Here's a hint, even Jesus had to learn how to convince a crowd.

I saw Hestia brought up in this thread, she writes a blog called The Coming Night, and whoever mentioned her is damn right, I bet about half of the MRAs I know would JUMP at the chance to marry a woman like her. Hell, even a woman HALF as 'traditional' as her.

So don't tell me we have a problem with "traditional".

No, what we have a problem with, is this La La Land you think we live in, where if a man acts a certain way, he's not going to experience the vagaries of the Family Law system, for example. And when that advice doesn't pan out, out come the Bibles and commence thumpin'.

What you people have, is a credibility problem.

Because as I remember it, when 'trads' used to admonish MRAs, we responded with "How do we protect ourselves against all this stuff?" Which was met with silence, then avoidance.

When you guys can meet that question with an actual answer. An actual, WORKABLE answer, then you have the right to declare one group or another 'wrong'.

As I see it, right now you guys, and sites like this, are part of The Manosphere. Like it or not.

And frankly it's a golden opportunity for you folks to get your message out, and find the holes in your arguments, and most importantly FIND SOLUTIONS. There isn't a single group that has anything approaching All The Answers(tm), but working as a unit, there's a surprising amount of momentum being built.

The question I have, as editor of MenZ Magazine, is "Do you want to be part of the discussion?" If so, I have an issue that needs filling right now. Deliver your message.

On Sarah Palin, her success depended on the left wing argument that all women are feminists and left wing. A Sarah Palin jumps up then and says we don't have to be left wing, we can be right wing too. Is she traditional? Probably not, she certainly is a bit flakey to say the least. Nonetheless she's not Hillary or Obama.

One example is Sarah O'Donnell, this is a supposedly strong Christian who took up witchcraft for a little while in her youth? How is this even possible? Because witchcraft is a fully female thing and she was "exploring" her "femininity", it would seem.

These women are "feminists" but they're right feminists and this is a change to the previous game. Is this a political answer for everything? No of course not, but it is a movement to the right. Also we're getting these women standing up and speaking for themselves and not manipulating male politicans to speak for them.

How are they different to left feminists? Palin might be a harridan around the house but I think you can gaurantee she won't divorce her husband. She has children, and she hasn't given her career greater importance over giving birth to, at least, a substantial family, and they don't seem to be massively warped. The issues with her daughter are fairly run of the mill things and she shouldn't be held to a level of perfection. Nobody can doubt that the daughter's boyfriend, and possible mayor of Wassilla, was fairly lame.

These are family oriented career women while Hillary is not. Would I want to marry one? Well they seem big swinging dicks and I don't want to take a backseat in my marriage. However, the "first dude", whatshisname, (I don't know his name because he doesn't thrust himself into the spotlight and has a bland personality) seems their kind of apporpriate partner.

We propose lots of things, law changes etc, so I don't see why we have to hear you offer nothing. Are we part of the men's movement? Sure why not I would hope so, but we don't see it as a men's alone movement.

You guys are worried about your flank, being attacked by other men while you're criticising feminists, that's fine, but you don't want a massive bunker mentality. I realise that if readers are being accused of sexual abuse etc a bit of that is predictable, but we want to get past rage too and lashing out at everyone.

Its not a desirable situation at the moment for anyone and we're just trying to move the ball forward.

Are "SoCons" as big or a bigger threat to men then feminists? I think the socon movement, gay marriage, Palin etc, is very heavily influenced by women. These are stay at home moms in many instances and they're pushy as (dodges being hit by Alte ;P). I've seen several of their husbands and many of them seem to be missing a Y chromosone (certainly not Alte's guy, *changes my home address to ensure protection*).

Well they have a legitimate voice too and as long as there's an appropriate men's voice alongside it I think that's fine.

As I see it, right now you guys, and sites like this, are part of The Manosphere. Like it or not.

Yeah, I'm part of the Manosphere, as well. Like it or not. I've actually tried to escape a couple of times, and keep getting dragged back by my hair. But I'm resigned to it now, and I've realized three things:

1) I have more in common with the Manosphere than with anyone else.2) Many of the Manosphere guys appreciate my opinion.3) The Manosphere is the only place on the interwebs where I am considered a moderate.

It’s interesting, really, because it’s fairly predictable how these conversations tend to go. For example, a significant effort is generally made to distinguish between “real” conservatives and “fake” conservatives – which is uderstandable because it means that the debater then just doesn’t have to address the actual conservatives who, you know, are actually in the political system, and can instead retreat to a more comfortable position of defending a political ideal which has zero political power in our culture.

In any case, at its base the answer to the question is what Factory has written. MRAs as a whole are a mixed group in terms of their politics, but as in all male groups, it tends to skew conservative in many respects. The disagreement with social conservatives – and the outright anger directed at them – from many guys in the MRA world is a direct result of the perception, based very much in reality, that the political conservatives have done nothing of value for men for the last 50 years and have no interest in doing anything of value for men today. And that is basically true.

When that’s pointed out, the typicaly response is “well, those guys aren’t REAL conservatives” (as noted above), but that’s bunk. George Bush ran as a social conservative and virtually all Americans would consider him to be one, and not a “fake right liberal”. People like Bush are the real social conservatives in that (1) they attract the political backing of virually all socially conservative voters and (2) the traditionalist “ultra” camp has NO political power. So it very much does “count” what the actual social conservatives who have political power do, and have done, and it’s basically nothing at all when it comes to any of the issues MRAs have. That creates anger, and it’s well-justified anger, in my opinion.

In reality, we’re discussing two groups – MRAs and traditionalist conservatives – who are currently very disempowered. The internet has magnified each of these groups, but it also has a tendency to make things feel like they are more common than they are, especially when you flit from site to site that tend to share ideology in common. In reality, in the non-cyber world, these perspectives are extreme minority views that are generally not capable of being discussed in polite conversation outside of closed groups of like minded people. MRA is growing somewhat faster than traditionalism is, but, again, it’s easy to get the wrong impression from the internet. As a whole, MRA is still a very, very small phenomenon – much smaller than the PUA phenomenon, really, and my guess is that Roissy’s site, with its insertion of much MRA-ish propaganda laced in with PUA ideas, has served to grow the MRA quite a bit more than would otherwise be the case. But it’s still quite small.

But the MRA is growing somewhat faster, I think, precisely because it is not focused on a cohesive worldview or ideology, but on pragmatic stuff. What draws men to the MRA are problems – real problems in the real world. Problems they are having due to family law. Problems they are having due to the current sexual marketplace. Problems they are having in the employment area and so on. And the MRA sites provide a place where these guys can vent, share with other men, and get ideas about how to deal with these problems. The range of ideas and advice is broad, and runs the gamut from MGTOW separatism to “game in marriage” coping mechanisms a la Dave in Hawaii or Athol Kay to legislative activism a la Glenn Sacks to becoming a PUA a la Roissy and Roosh. These are all very different approaches, rooted, in each case, in different “worldviews”. That’s because the MRM is really a grab-bag of different approaches to dealing with the kinds of real world problems men bring to it and come to it looking for help with.

This tends to make traditionalist conservatives confused, I think. The question is typically asked “what do they really want?”, or comments are made to the effect that “the MRAs don’t know what they want” and so forth. That’s because MRAs do not have a unified political worldview. The MRM is more a hodge-podge of different solutions to the kinds of problems brought to it by men, loosely held together by the common experience of having these shared problems in common. The MRM isn’t out there promulgating its own “worldview endgame” or its own utopian vision of how its political programme would transform society. Rather, it’s about providing help, options, and alternatives to guys with real problems in the here and now – not laying the supposed foundation for some hoped-for utopian world down the pike.

This is the main difference between traditionalism and the MRAs. Traditionalism is a political perspective that reflects a worldview and the desire to lay the foundation for a reversion of society to traditional values at some future time. The MRAs are about providing practical solutions to men in today’s world. This often leads to clashes between the two groups. Why? Because traditionalists, being a small politically disempowered group, nevertheless insist that men embrace traditional values in their lives IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND SOCIAL SYSTEM PROVIDE. I’ll say that again, for emphasis – what you have is basically a group that has no power at all to change the laws and social system insisting that the only proper thing for men to do is to act as if these unfavorable legal and social systems simply do not exist! It should be unsurprising that many men find this “approach” to be less than helpful, to say the least.

Even worse, some (perhaps many?) traditionalist conservatives are dead-set against any changes to the current system that would alleviate some of the imbalances against men, because doing so would further collaborate with an “equalist” system which is, itself, the problem. In other words – either change the laws back to the way they were before no-fault divorce, or leave them the way they are now, but don’t make the current laws more “fair” or “equal”, because those are both liberal ideas that traditionalist conservatives want no part of. Many of the men over at Laura Wood’s site think like that.

In light of these conflicts, you can see why many guys in the MRM really dislike traditionalist conservatives. The traditionalists are focused on not ceding any more territory to liberal ideas, in the hope of laying the foundation for a future revival of traditionalist culture and values. The MRA is focused on helping guys now, in the current context, in the current reality. Traditionalists see this as a concession to liberalism, whereas MRAs see it as a pragmatic approach based on the idea that, no matter what your “worldview endgame utopia” is, it isn’t coming soon, and between now and then there are quite a few things that would make the lives of men better than sticking with the current setup.

This is a conflict that will never go away, because the two movments are focused on different things, and, more specifically, have a fundamentally different idea about how the present situation is to be approached.

You've been fighting the good fight for so long that you fail to notice that the whole house is crashing down around you. Who cares anymore? It's all going to end soon, anyway. Either the guv is going to finally crack down on all of us, or it will fall. Either way, we need to focus on Plan B.

The real question is: What comes next? What kind of world do we want to build, when we rebuild? I'm with the traditionalists on that, which is why I'm here. The hedonists are enjoying themselves, but they have no coherent plan. They have -- as you, yourself, admit -- no worldview. And a worldview is what we need now, not more advice on police and porn, and whining about how women are all that is wrong with the world.

This is all bigger than that now. Political speech is future-oriented, not present-tense. When those guys can present me with a plan, I'll listen up again. Until then, I'm doing my own thing. You guys keep saying the traditionalists don't have a tactic for achieving their goals. Who cares? The world doesn't stand still. They just have to place themselves in a convenient spot, remind people of their existence occasionally, and then speak up when the moment looks right. That is all. Really.

That's how the feminists did it. Their movement got nowhere until after the Civil War, when they piggy-backed on suffrage. They just waited, occasionally made some noise, and then pounced.

Yes, I'm drunk, so I'm rambling incoherently. But I still mean it. This is what I've realized. Good night.

"Traditionalism is a political perspective that reflects a worldview and the desire to lay the foundation for a reversion of society to traditional values at some future time. The MRAs are about providing practical solutions to men in today’s world"

That's not true, xbox is not a practical solution its a statement of the futility of action. "What are the traditionalists going to do for us?" is also a statement of the futility of action. We haven't even gotten really into the guts of the debate yet, which is why we keep having it, because we're still getting over the threshold issues, should anything be done? Can anything be done?

Its one thing to say George Bush has done nothing. Its another to say that he's the problem. This implies that George Bush is active in the creation of this situation, as opposed to not being effective in opposing it or in allowing compromises with the left.

The "George Bush" position is not the permanent position of the right, socons or traditionalists. Its based on the assumption that men are still powerful and women can afford to be given more. When you explode that assumption, which is currently happening, then that socon position does not stand and it changes also.

If the MRM position is, "hey life is unfair for men, and I hate everyone else, screw everyone else". That is a LIBERAL position. What does that matter? Well under liberalism justice is weakened. Everyone does their own thing, looks to their own horizons and generally doesn't care about others. Under liberalism who really cares if injustice happens as long as it doesn't happen to you. And should it happen to you then you're left wondering why nobody seems to be helping you.

Underlying the MRM is a general rage at the modern world for allowing this to happen. Yet we know how this happened. The feminist lobby pushed their agenda and nobody (enough) paid sufficient attention to stop it. Why? Because everyone was liberally minding their own business.

So yes liberalism matters. If the MRM becomes excessively liberal then that will not only affect what they can achieve but also why anyone else should help them. Why promote one self interested group over another? Why encourage men to cut themselves off from obligations, not only this society, but to any society?

Liberalism is not uniformly everywhere. Also people perpetually complain about it, "nobody seems to care anymore". We are not living in some post political world of women we are living in a currently active political world where things are up for grabs.

I think your analysis is correct for at least some MRAs. They identify "social conservative" with the mainstream right and since the mainstream right have either done nothing to counter feminism or have even supported it, they want to hold "socons" to account.

What needs to be asked is why people called "conservatives" would fall in with feminism. MRAs do give an answer, but I think it's not the key answer. They argue that the "conservatives" fall in because for old-fashioned white knighting purposes they blame men and expect men to defer to women.

So the political line becomes: "Feminists and social conservatives are two sides to the one coin, both of them blame men and fail to recognise the destructive behaviours of women".

The solution then is: "If only we could get rid of the white knighting/chivalry, then women would be called out on their destructive behaviours and we could deal with the injustices perpetrated on men".

If you accept all this, it then becomes logical to focus on man blaming "social conservatives" as agents of destructive social change.

No doubt this theory will spread via sites like The Spearhead. But I think it mis-identifies the problem and so won't do a lot of good.

Even if you got rid of every last skerrick of chivalry from right-wing men, they would still support feminism for as long as they are captured by a liberal politics.

And the thing is that most of the men on the right self-identify as liberal. Look at David Cameron in the UK. He wants the "Conservative" Party to represent the UK as, in his own words, "a champion of liberal values".

Liberals do not recognise that our inherited sex might help to shape our life choices. So they see the continuing influence of gender as representing a harmful discrimination and inequality to be rooted out. Since they aim at autonomy, and view the traditionally male lifestyle as the autonomous one, they see the problem as being male privilege and male sexism.

It is these political assumptions that need to be rooted out. MRAs are contributing positively by pointing to the falsity of the "men are privileged/women are oppressed" mindset.

But the "social conservatives" are to blame theory doesn't help, as it diverts attention away from liberal assumptions about men and women, and sometimes even directs criticism towards genuine social conservatives.

I'll throw this out there. See today its difficult/hard to be a man. But its not easy to be a woman either. Back in the day the man in the career world had a subordinate wife and secretary to make his life easier. Today they're gone for men, but women, who want to be men, don't have these things either. The majority of men won't sign up for that no matter how much women want it and the state can never be a sufficient replacement.

I as a man have historical precedent on my side. I can say that this or that is how a man should behave. Women have nothing like that. Everything they're doing is new. So some will take up witchcraft, some become dykes, some will be mega bitches, whatever happens they'll be all over the place.

Now you can say "serves them right", except that they're just trying to grab onto what men in the career world could all take for granted. Generally speaking. Too mangina? Oh well.

Sarah Palin is a social liberal and a capitalist (aka fiscal conservative/social liberal=libertarian). The only things she cares about are her books, freedom, the republic/democracy, capitalism, the TEA Party and her reality TV show. She's a libertarian.

How? She has called anybody that opposes homosexuality to be investigated. She's friends with 'conservative lesbian' Tammy Bruce. Look what she tweeted:

She is merely a symbol to liberals --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018389.html

She's a symbol of how ''ultra-right'' she is when in reality she's not. She doesn't oppose equality, individualism and other liberal concepts.

Remember George W. Bush? He's a neoconservative. How? He has said ''Islam is a religion of peace'', he has given loans to unqualified minorities --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011498.html, believes in white guilt --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012922.html and is trying to ''spread freedom and democracy'' --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006291.html

''But the "social conservatives" are to blame theory doesn't help, as it diverts attention away from liberal assumptions about men and women, and sometimes even directs criticism towards genuine social conservatives.''

That is what I have been saying Mark Richardson. All of these ''feminist conservatives'' at closer inspection look like right-liberals or libertarians. These MRAs or PUA or MGTOW are shifting the blame that liberalism is causing to traditional conservatives which don't have any power in society.

''And the thing is that most of the men on the right self-identify as liberal. Look at David Cameron in the UK. He wants the "Conservative" Party to represent the UK as, in his own words, "a champion of liberal values".''

Haven't we been trying to say to these people that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and other right wing politicians are libertarians at least and total liberals at most?

slwerner and Factory I'm sorry but the first time I heard of chilvary was in a liberal school during English class. My family has never talked about it. They taught me order, community, discrimination, transcendence and other values.

It is the liberals whom you should target. They rule society today. They have infiltrated Christianity. They have the schools, the churches, the military, the institutions, the communications and other things.

They are the ones whom think traditional conservatives are somehow in control and I quote from http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018495.html

''I think I get where you're going with this. It's not so much about getting people to change their minds, rather its about forcing them to "own" what they claim to believe, and accepting the consequences that flow from this. It's about forcing them to take responsibility of the issue, which they will not do.This is part of a trend I have noticed amongst liberals: they do not really believe what they claim to believe; they hate being put on the spot in this way.

For example: I have a young friend, who is very much a typical young person in terms of his attitudes and opinions. He is musical, and very into punk. He often likes to talk about the importance of being a rebel. So one day I asked him: "But what is it about you that is so rebellious?" After a great deal of thought, came the answer "I used to not like being told what to do by teachers in school." Well, duh. Who does?!

After thinking about this, it dawned on me, that firstly, he still has a natural sense of what is right and wrong imprinted on his conscience. Therefore, even if (for example) homosexuality and promiscuity are officially sanctioned, there will always be a part of him that sees these things as inherently rebellious--although when challenged, he knows this would sound ridiculous. He has also failed to absorb any of the cultural and political changes of the last forty years. In his head, it is still 1967, the cultural revolution is still reaching its heady, exciting climax. The number of minorities are still very small, the police are still racist and bigoted and actually protect them from criminals, families still consist of a married man and a woman and 2.4 kids.

Liberals have never come to terms with their victory. They never expected to win so completely, and had no real plans to do so. They cannot bear to see the world as it really is, cannot face the fact that what was supposed to be a rebellious shove has caused their aging enemy to collapse and have a stroke. They are living off the comforting notion that all is as it was, that they have not won, that the forces of the old fashioned establishment are still safely in place to rail against, that the old morals are still safely there to fall back on when they, or preferably another generation in the future, decides to grow up. This is not just a perpetual adolescence, but a perpetual adolescence in a perpetual, pristine 1967. All of popular culture, its music and festivals, is all about trying to keep the newness and sense of momentum without that motion ever really taking us anywhere nasty, like 2011. They are living a lie.''

Traditional conservatives do know that society has changed and is liberal. We are still thinking on how and planning opposition to liberalism. We aren't sitting around saying ''Oh don't worry be chilvarious towards liberal and libertarian women''. In fact the only time my family talked about chilvary was when they said ''Chilvary is only reserved for women of respect'' after I came back from that English class.

"If you accept all this, it then becomes logical to focus on man blaming "social conservatives" as agents of destructive social change."

Lets look at this using a little bit of feminist language. You begin by acceptting that there was a patriarchy in the past and that it gave certain benefits to men but also had certain expectations of them. This process evolved as a way to serve society One of the benefits for men being that women were to be generally more subordinate. Men would serve society, and women would serve men to a degree.

Feminism came in and said we won't serve men, and we should have an equal opportunity to make it into society. Also men should do more for us. Men on the other hand are/were still expected to serve society in various respects, according to the traditionalist or socon script. So men were still technically part of the unjust patriarchy according to feminism, and still required to serve society according to trad/socon thinking. They're were also required to do more for women to keep their relationships on line. However, very little was returned to men. In order to fulfill all these roles they were expected to be "stronger", "realer men", and we heard things like "real men stay home to change the nappies" etc.

The feminists said that they should receive and that we should give. They didn't, however, generally admit that they had obligations to society in the same way that the patriarchs of old would have. In those instances, eg broken cars and required wars, they still look around for men and said "where have they all gone?". Some attempts have been made to draft the government into this role but that can never be an efficient solution.

The result was that men generally started eschewing obligations to society. Male volunteerism generally plummeted and women didn’t or weren’t capable of taking up the slack. Additionally women's big service to society, having children, nuturing/motherhood, also began to be abandoned.

This all begins to lead to a generally dysfunctional society, where people are prepared to give relatively little to others.

How can we turn this around? Well if we deliberetly try to crash society we won't get to reboot it and simply start over. Foreigners and muslims will simply take charge. If you don't think that you're wrong.

The biggest turn around has to be that both men and women accept that they have obligations to society. Right wing women don't divorce as much? Why because they face social disapproval if they do. Why is that? Because divorce is generally socially dysfunctional. They’re also generally expected to have children.

Everything can't be about personal "rights". We can't put the rights of an individual or a group over the survival of society. Women have to be pushed away from this thinking and men can hardly be encouraged to take up the same destructive formula.

You're not wrong in your thinking but a right libertarian is still generally more right wing than a leftwinger. Palin and Bush aren't Hillary or Obama. They may have similarities but that doesn't make them the same. If right wing politicans are constrained by political realities they're still generally better than left wingers unless they totally abandon any pretence, eg David Cameron.

Politics isn't static and it moves. Its better if it moves right rather than left. We can point out though that moving to "money markets" and "personal freedoms" isn't necessarily moving right. The word “conservative” has been abused for too long.

1) I have more in common with the Manosphere than with anyone else.2) Many of the Manosphere guys appreciate my opinion.3) The Manosphere is the only place on the interwebs where I am considered a moderate."

Mark: I just don't get this thing you have against autonomy. I believe people should be free to make their own choices, but I see where you're coming from. The issue is not, in my opinion, whether or not to adopt an 'autonomous' society...but whether or not to coddle people, and shield them from the repurcussions of their actions.

All I can say, is that you guys are locked in the same battle for hearts and minds as we are. If you feel that we are a problem, as opposed to a solution, then I am more than happy to agree to disagree, and hereafter simply ignore everything I see from this type of site. I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to convince the majority of MRAs to do so as well.

Thing is, the Mens Movement is poised to grow like a bat out of hell. It's a lot easier to help steer a rocket before it gets too much momentum going. And you have been invited to show how your 'worldview' will tangibly benefit men, right now, or in the foreseeable future.

So far, as with the demand for feminists to show that men actually are...er...'priveleged', the only answer has been a demand for blind faith. Obviously, it's not like I don't give credence to (some of) the posters here...there's valuable insight to be gained throughout these debates. But honestly, when you're selling the sizzle, there has to be at least SOME steak involved. What, precisely, do you offer?

After repeated threads, and articles, about that very subject, all there has been is a lot of dancing.

As for the MRM take on Chivalry, you should read this article:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/01/01/staring-out-from-the-abyss/

"What is Gynocentrism Theory? To put it simply, it is a system which explains social relations between the sexes. It supersedes Patriarchy Theory, the cornerstone of all feminist thought. Now memetic, Patriarchy Theory has proved a remarkable tool in denying men their rights, including their most basic human rights to dignity and bodily integrity, on the pretense that all men are oppressors (or at least, allied with oppressive men from whom they receive benefits) and that all women are victims of male power. Gynocentrism Theory is the articulation of many years of effort by various thinkers in the Men's Rights sphere to describe a vision of the world which more accurately reflects the experiences of men - and many women, too. In contrast to the simplistic, black-and-white tribalism of Patriarchy Theory, Gynocentrism Theory does not equate male fulfillment with the holding of tyrannical power over women. Gynocentrism Theory does not accept that men act as a power bloc. On the contrary, Gynocentrism Theory exposes the divergence between demographics and interests; fundamentally, that while a small number of men may be the ones holding social and political power, this by no means implies that they do so for the benefit of all men; and that in fact, more usually, they do so for the benefit of most women and to the detriment of most men. Gynocentrism Theory advocates that power be understood as multi-faceted, and that policy has historically been a matter of appealing to, and protecting, women."

Jesse:

You sure are an argumentative dude. I'm usually up for it, but tonight I'm tired.

Everything can't be about personal "rights". We can't put the rights of an individual or a group over the survival of society. Women have to be pushed away from this thinking and men can hardly be encouraged to take up the same destructive formula.

I do get what riles some MRAs here. I can remember thinking much the same thing in my mid-20s - that society was focusing on enabling female individualism (endless articles in the media about "What women want"), with men expected to not only bear the burdens of their fathers, but also to pick up new ones created by female entitlement.

I know too what the temptation is here: it's to respond to the female individualism with your own male one.

But I'm glad I (eventually) chose a different response, namely to insist on better terms in my own relationships, whilst at the same time working politically to ensure that my own son wouldn't have to go through in his 20s what I was put through.

Well, the traditionalists may have no power, but they convinced me, formerly a right-liberal atheist, that they're onto something. I'm not that interested in individual rights for individual men, I'm interested in ways parts of our society, our people and our civilisation, can survive into the future. Traditionalism, even among a minority, offers some hope of that.

We are not living in some post political world of women we are living in a currently active political world where things are up for grabs.

You really are deluded. The political world is not up for grabs. There is no serious challenge to liberalism anywhere in the Western world.

There is another question, what if things don't collapse and just keep on keeping on? Then what we do does matters.

Things are not going to remain in stasis. Things are either going to keep relentlessly moving Leftwards, as they have been for decades, or collapse. In either case what you do doesn't really matter.

How can we turn this around? Well if we deliberetly try to crash society we won't get to reboot it and simply start over. Foreigners and muslims will simply take charge. If you don't think that you're wrong.

At this point, foreigners and Muslims are numerically relatively small in the Anglosphere nations. Their power and significance is magnified, however, by the attention that the evil Leftist regimes that control these nations lavish on them. If society crashed, then foreigners and Muslims would not take charge because they would no longer have the Leftist state/media/academic apparatus backing them.

The biggest turn around has to be that both men and women accept that they have obligations to society. Right wing women don't divorce as much? Why because they face social disapproval if they do.

No woman of any political stripe faces social disapproval if she divorces.

anon:"No woman of any political stripe faces social disapproval if she divorces."

That seems like a la-la land comment to me. Maybe she doesn't face *enough* disapproval, maybe not as much as a man would, but if she's the marriage-wreaker she'll certainly be disapproved of. In Daily Mail/'middle England' morality, which is set by women, the bad woman is a common trope.

"No woman of any political stripe faces social disapproval if she divorces."

It depends. If she is a Christian and attends a conservative church she may be asked to leave. I knew a woman who was kicked out of her church after a frivolous divorce and also lost her job by that church.

I think the divide between (some) MRAs and Traditionalists is often due to the fact that many MRAs tend not to be religious. If you are a bible-believing Christian you think about pleasing God first and foremost.

Such a woman won't divorce her husband not because of social pressure but because she will believe it's a mortal sin which will bring God's wrath upon her.

Contrary to what some of you guys may think in conservative churches women are taught about their obligations to their husbands and families.

Check, for instance the book by Debi Pearl "Created To Be His Helpmeet", in which she blames women for the variety of marital problems, including abuse.

Liberals have never come to terms with their victory. They never expected to win so completely, and had no real plans to do so.

Elizabeth, that's a really interesting thought. I do recall reading some years ago about a lefty activist in the UK. By the end of his life he had come to lament the state of England. His explanation for the decline was that the conservative side of politics had been too weak to hold the balance of politics against lefties like himself. I can't, unfortunately, remember his name.

I doubt if what you say is true of all liberals, though. The serious academic types, such as the Rawlses, are out for something more than adolescent rebellion. They're serious about promoting liberalism as a morality and as technique for regulating society.

In Daily Mail/'middle England' morality, which is set by women, the bad woman is a common trope.

Yep, in fact the Daily Mail runs heaps of stories about ladette culture run amok. And also about false rape accusations and domestic violence against men. And also stories about women who left marriage too late because they were too busying partying/rejecting family men when in their 20s.

I guess that's part of the reason why I say that the idea of the pure, innocent, eternally wronged female is rapidly dying out. I even notice it in the comments section of left-wing newspapers like the Guardian. A lot of the men commenting at these sites are not willing to cop the blame on behalf of women anymore.

Factory, it's not that I'm against autonomy. Autonomy in certain contexts is an important good. It starts to go wrong, though, when it's made the defining, overriding human good.

If the aim is always to maximise autonomy, then whatever impedes our ability to self-determine will start to be looked on negatively as a restriction, a prison, from which the individual has to be liberated.

But there are lots of significant aspects of life which are not, and cannot be, self-determined.

Anything that is inherited or predetermined fails the test. And that includes our sex, our ethnicity, conventional forms of morality, objective or embedded forms of morality and so on.

So liberalism sets itself the goal of making things such as our sex and our ethnicity not matter. It does so in the name of human freedom or liberty.

But it's a mistaken concept of freedom, one which requires the individual to be stripped of key aspects of his identity.

"Thing is, the Mens Movement is poised to grow like a bat out of hell. It's a lot easier to help steer a rocket before it gets too much momentum going."

Its good that you're willing to stand up as a leader for your movement. We heard before that the Men's movement should have no leaders but focus on giving people a forum to work things out for themselves. If you have no leaders at all a movement cannot thrive.

"The issue is not, in my opinion, whether or not to adopt an 'autonomous' society...but whether or not to coddle people, and shield them from the repercussions of their actions."

Lets look at this from that perspective, which means removing state support from women. I don't think that is really a controversial statement in conservative circles. We hear about single, and teen mothers having babies on the government dime, in a negative way, all the time. If you switch on Judge Judy, a hardly very conservative source, she frequently lambastes welfare parents who act without thinking and who believe that they deserve a lifestyle regardless of whether they can pay for it or not. Her ideal person is someone who pays their own bills and makes their own way. In the 80's and 90's there was a very strong right wing movement to end or wind back state welfare. The Tea party is part of that.

Sarah Palin is not a libertarian, she's a social conservative. You can't be a libertarian and a statist simultaneously. Ron Paul is a libertarian, Von Mises is libertarian, Vox Day is libertarian, I am libertarian. Sarah Palin would pale at the sort of game-changing state shrinkage and personal freedoms we're promoting.

The conservatives just substituted state-enforced child support for state welfare. There are even more never-married women living on "the dole" now, than before. The day that a socon declares an end to CS for never-married women, the reduction of the federal budget by 60%, and the repeal of no-fault divorce... I'll take them seriously. Until then, they're just right-statists, rather than left-statists.

If there were a program to homosexualize the masses, you would certainly agree - even with your unjustifiably limited understanding of homosexuality - that such a program was evil and to be totally rejected. Such a program would be self-annihilating as homosexuality as chosen orientation is self-annihilating. This is certainly a program that any Man's movement would identify and call out for rejection, no?

Yet, males are being "feminized." This is according to ALL who have a claim on the right from the atheist "conservative" to the white Supremacist. But what does this actually mean? Does this mean Man is being made feminine? What does it mean for Man to live under "feminism?" It doesn't even make sense and yet you persist.

Imagine modern female LEGALLY joining the Alpha carousel, LEGALLY killing her OWN CHILD in utero and LEGALLY divorcing with no-fault.

I do get what riles some MRAs here. I can remember thinking much the same thing in my mid-20s - that society was focusing on enabling female individualism (endless articles in the media about "What women want"), with men expected to not only bear the burdens of their fathers, but also to pick up new ones created by female entitlement.

I know too what the temptation is here: it's to respond to the female individualism with your own male one.

But I'm glad I (eventually) chose a different response, namely to insist on better terms in my own relationships, whilst at the same time working politically to ensure that my own son wouldn't have to go through in his 20s what I was put through.

And that sums up the difference here, I think.

In many ways, it amounts to how durable one sees the liberal regime as being. I know that it's fashionable in both traditional *and* MRA circles to think that the end of the West/the system/liberalism/feminism/fill-in-the-blank is coming "soonish", but I don't see much evidence of that, really. It's just as likely (and perhaps more likely) that things keep puttering along, with liberalism becoming more entrenched in more countries around the world, as well as in its Western homeland. One's perspective on this issue, however -- the timing issue, I mean -- is critical as to one's tactics.

If you tend to believe that the end of the "system" is coming soonish, you'll be less interested in creating relief for men within the current scheme, and more interested in what replaces the current scheme in toto. If you tend to believe that it's unclear if/when the current system is coming to an end, you'll be more inclined to focus on creating relief within this system, flawed as it may be, rather than focusing on what replaces it in some rather uncertain future.

This, I think, is the key difference between traditionalists and even those MRAs who are more sympathetic to traditionalism as an "endgame worldview".

Elizabeth Smith - ”I'm sorry but Sarah Palin has called stay a home mothers regressive. She has insulted them. She isn't a traditional conservative.”

The apparent disconnect between you folks here (Australian Traditionalists) and those of us in the US (and UK as well) is that we use the labels that various groups use to label themselves. American Conservatives aren’t really particularly “conservative” (based on the original meaning of the term), and American Liberals are anything but.

In a response I left Mark R. on the Spearhead I addressed his attempt to put “our” various socio-political entities into well defined categories (again, based on the strict definition of the terms). It just doesn’t work. American politics and “sense” are entirely incompatable, especially the labels being used to categorize people.

Most American MRA’s do tend to use the prevailing labels, simply because they are well understood by others. People Like Sarah Palin call themselves Social Conservatives, the media obliges them, and uses that term, and it ends up in common usage. It’s not an accurate reflection of what they stand for nor how they actually act. But, it’s a terminology to easily identifies what type of people we are speaking of.

Novaseeker:If you tend to believe that the end of the "system" is coming soonish, you'll be less interested in creating relief for men within the current scheme, and more interested in what replaces the current scheme in toto. If you tend to believe that it's unclear if/when the current system is coming to an end, you'll be more inclined to focus on creating relief within this system, flawed as it may be, rather than focusing on what replaces it in some rather uncertain future.

That is a very interesting point. As one who has seen the "end of the world" imminent several times now, I take those trad-cons who go on about imminent collapse with a large grain of salt. Look, the Soviet system collapsed over 20 years ago, has there been any change in the way men are regarded yet? Any decline in divorce rates or abortion rates? Shift in taxation? From what I can tell, life in the former Warsaw pact is unquestionably better in terms of personal security (the secret police aren't going to come in the night any more) but so far as relations between men and women == no real difference.

I remember some of the religious cults back in the 80's leaving North America because they expected the end of the world. Some went to Brazil, where they faced language and cultural barriers. In the 90's, a few of them came back north, because their children were turning into Brazilians. What did they have to show for 10 to 15 years of exile?

Sitting around waiting for the current system to collapse seems frankly nuts. Expecting to overhaul the entire system via legislation frankly seems remote. But damaging feminism in small ways - mandatory paternity testing, making shared custody the default in divorce cases, pushing back at some of the overt discrimination in education - might be possible.

From what I can tell, MRA's will have to do all those things by themselves. Because the social conservatives, the traditionalists, are too busy with grand castles in the air, and ladling out shame to men who don't "man up" enough to do anything in the real world.

I have no idea what you're blathering on about.But, then again, neither do you.

LOL.

Look, the Soviet system collapsed over 20 years ago, has there been any change in the way men are regarded yet?

That is a completely different scenario because it was a single collapse in a bi-polar world. The USSR collapsed, but the USA remained standing and took over sole leadership. China is not placed to take over leadership (at least not for long) because it's own economy will fall with or right after ours, rather than profiting from our fall. Furthermore, all of the current leading economies are handicapped by their aging and shrinking working-age populations. The rapid population declines are the game-changer, this time around. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if there is nobody left to put the boots on.

At any rate, tyranny (like modern Russia) or anarchy (like in the Middle East right now) could be in our near-future. That's basically what we're preparing for, not for "the end of the world", or anything. What will definitely change is the political status quo, and when it changes the goal is to replace it with something of our own choosing. We can already see that happening, as feminism breathes its last dying gasps, the mainstream media loses its audience to the blogosphere and other informal/interactive media, and traditionalism once again becomes a topic under discussion. And it is under discusssion, even in the larger public.

It is the idea that things will just "keep on, keeping on", even when the money runs out, that I find strange. Feminism is expensive, and soon we won't be able to afford it. We'll have poverty or patriarchy, but we won't have wealthy "independent womanhood" anymore.

MeLook, the Soviet system collapsed over 20 years ago, has there been any change in the way men are regarded yet?

AlteThat is a completely different scenario because it was a single collapse in a bi-polar world. The USSR collapsed, but the USA remained standing and took over sole leadership.

That didn't make any difference to Ivan in the street. On the one hand, his government wasn't building more ICBM's, on the other hand his government could no longer extort resources from Eastern Europe. It was a wash.

I think you are confusing economic and political change with cultural change. I'm pointing out that an economic collapse does not necessarily lead to a social change, and the entire former Warsaw Pact plus what is now the CIS proves my point. Feminism is resurgent in Ukraine and Russia, for example. Abortion is still the leading form of birth control. The social structure is pretty much as it was 25 years ago.

If nearly a generation after an economic collapse no significant cultural changes have occurred, I do not see how it can but prove my point.

Furthermore, all of the current leading economies are handicapped by their aging and shrinking working-age populations. The rapid population declines are the game-changer, this time around. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if there is nobody left to put the boots on.

In such a situation, the people who benefit most from the status quo will surely double down to keep the status quo intact, right? So that means more Affirmative Action, not less, in order that women "keep their fair share". That means more extraction of resources from men, not less, to "protect the children".

I just don't see aging feminists, faced with a dwindling pie to eat from, suddenly deciding "Oh! We've been wrong all this time! We should order our lives completely differently". Rather I see them demanding their "fair share" no matter who gets hurt, and white knight social conservatives will order men with guns to "make it so".

What will definitely change is the political status quo, and when it changes the goal is to replace it with something of our own choosing.

Why? Why will the status quo change? The ongoing "deep recession" has burdened men greatly, and the status quo has done what? If anything, it's rewarding those women who got government AA jobs - unlike the men in construction or the skilled trades, they still have a job.

We can already see that happening, as feminism breathes its last dying gasps, the mainstream media loses its audience to the blogosphere and other informal/interactive media, and traditionalism once again becomes a topic under discussion. And it is under discusssion, even in the larger public.

I just don't see feminism dying. If anything, the current 20-something women are more feminist in their ways than the boomers were. Thanks to Title IX, they expect all sorts of aid and doors to be opened for them. Thanks to AA, they expect to get a job - and they do, too. They may not call themselves feminist, but they are, to the max. With all due respect to Mark and Welmer and others, a few hundred people reading a handful of blogs is not a massive social movement.

It is the idea that things will just "keep on, keeping on", even when the money runs out, that I find strange. Feminism is expensive, and soon we won't be able to afford it. We'll have poverty or patriarchy, but we won't have wealthy "independent womanhood" anymore.

What makes you think the money will run out any time soon? The other day I read where Hungary has basically ordered all private pensions to be paid into the government pension fund. There is a lot of wealth in the West that can still be looted by government in order to buy favors from pet pressure groups.

Are you saying that there's no point in pushing back against feminism, because it's all going to fall down "real soon"? That's what it looks like to me. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Actually in the US at least the demographic story is a bit different. The US population is projected to continue to grow at a substantial clip in the coming decades, mostly due to immigrants and their offspring and their highish birth rates. This also means that while the dependency ratio is going up, it's still going to be well within manageable ranges, and the US will be one of the only Western countries in a few decades with a substantial and vibrant young portion of its population. So on the macro level at least, the US isn't facing the kind of inversion that some of the European countries, or Japan, are looking at in the coming decades.

Of course, this leaves aside the reality that the demographic composition of the US population will be changing radically during this same period, with the Latino share doubling, and whites projected to become a minority (but still the largest single group) by 2050. The key for the US to survive as an entity is to manage this demographic shift, and so far that's going badly. The latest elections ('10) reflected, as reported by National Journal (not a right-wing rag by any means), white folks vs. everyone else, in political terms. That's obviously a recipe for increased social tension, and I think that's the key risk for the US in the decades ahead -- how to manage that. But at least in terms of raw demographics the US isn't in dire straits like some other industrialized nations are, due to immigration rates and the birth rates of immigrants and their descendants.

Personally, I expect that the entity known as the USA will survive intact, but will be morphing during this period into a country that more closely resembles the countries to its south. Not only in being more Latino, but also in terms of the social divisions -- a small, perpetual elite at the top that secures its position by breeding exclusively with other meritocratic elites (as is generally already happening under the rubric "assortative mating"), a very small bourgeois class below them, and a mountain of workers making up most of the population. As a result it will likely be more authoritarian, but of the liberal variety. I don't see an imminent collapse in the cards, however.

Novaseeker, you should keep in mind that Third World immigrants are largely a financial net drain on Western societies. Having more illegal immigrants on your soil than Western Europe is hardly an advantage. Do you really think the offspring of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, will become dutiful net tax payers propping up the enormous welfare state?

The US fertility rate was 2.1 in 2008, and has since slightly declined because of the worsening economy, slowing of net-immigration, and declining marriage rates.

The collapse will be like Argentina, I think. Not like the Revolutionary War. But it will still change things dramatically.

AR,

The ideological movement that best characterizes Russia's near-future is Islam. Russia and it's associates are being completely overrun and repopulated by Muslim traditionalists. Why do you think inter-ethnic strife is increasing again?

They tried to revert to tyranny+feminism, but it was a temporary change because feminism kills off your population and plunges you into poverty. Nobody can escape that. Yes, it took a while, because the West has been keeping them afloat by buying up their commodities and investing in their countries, but that is now coming to an end.

Rather I see them demanding their "fair share" no matter who gets hurt, and white knight social conservatives will order men with guns to "make it so".

If they do that, it'll be back to grass huts for all of us. I don't think married women will stand for it. There's a reason why the Tea Party is so heavily middle class and female.

If anything, it's rewarding those women who got government AA jobs - unlike the men in construction or the skilled trades, they still have a job.

You keep talking about the present state as if it were static. Things will change. Women will lose those AA jobs because there'll be no one to pay them for work nobody needs anymore. The next big round of layoffs will be in the State and Municipal sectors, and will effect mostly women. Any economic growth will only come from productive enterprise, in the future, and those are dominated by men. The Mancession will eventually turn into a Womancession just because of the economics.

There is a lot of wealth in the West that can still be looted by government in order to buy favors from pet pressure groups.

To ask the question, is to answer it. Pension wealth (much of it ephemeral, by the way) is definitely going to be raided. That's already happening in Europe, and the Americans are considering it, too. But think about it: who holds most of the retirement and pension wealth in the West? Women do, through their own pensions, or through their access to their husband's pensions. Women are being asked to fund their own lifestyle through the liquidation of their future wealth. Good luck using that to fund feminism indefinitely. And when the stock and bond markets fall again, those pensions are going to be wiped out.

What next? What can you plunder next before there's nothing left to plunder? Money doesn't go on trees, and inflation is eating away at the worth of what money we have already. At some point, you really do just run out of other people's money, then you run out of your own, and then you need an increase in surplus to create new wealth. And only men create surplus.

I don't know how long it will take; I can't see the future. But I know it will be fast enough that legal changes aren't really worth bothering with. Besides, legal changes are a reflection of political changes. As the economy changes, the politics will change, and then the legalities will change, and everyone will wonder why it wasn't always like that before.

Most people live entirely in the present, and what they see around them seems permanent. But it isn't.

"In such a situation, the people who benefit most from the status quo will surely double down to keep the status quo intact, right? So that means more Affirmative Action, not less, in order that women "keep their fair share". That means more extraction of resources from men, not less, to "protect the children"."

I agree with this, you'll see more affirmative action, although perhaps for a restricted class, and more immigration to prop everything up. The future will be paid for by gradually declining standards of living.

Alte you say the collapse will be like Argentina, well where is their society going? On your point about Palin I agree she is a statist.

One difference between child support and state welfare is that men can take precautions to prevent them having children.

On the men's right's movement we certainly need one and a strong one. But we don't need one that is dominated by despair and selfishness.

I have been married over 35 years. I was also an actual activist at some level from the 60's, and a public activist from 1978 till 1993. And, an extremely militant activist from 1984 till 1993, I picketed the courthouse.The governor of our state invited me to visit him.

So, what did I accomplish? Exactly what y'all are going to accomplish. NOTHING.

Your list of laws to be changed, as one writer pointed out are nothing but castles in the sky. You are doing nothing to make it happen. While you engage in intellectual diarrhea, more laws and regulations are being passed to destroy men some more.

Nova is right. Men of all ages do not need blueprints for castles in the sky, and intellectual diarrhea. They need solutions NOW, and the MRA blogs give them choices with explanations of each choice.

Also, one said we need leaders. Wrong. A leader is instantly attacked by everyone, while everyone else ignores him, and spews more intellectual diarrhea.

The MGTOW plan, whichi tends towards DON'T GET MARRIED, and also GTHO, needs no leader, yet in my 40 years on this, refusal to marry is the only thing that has given men any political clout.

Men are turning away from marriage, even if they don't talk about it on the Web.

But, forgive me. Men all want to get married. It is women who have rejected marriage to the evil male. That's why GROOM magazine is for sale in every supermarket checkout line.

At least two well known writers have claimed there is no marriage strike. One, because she has no knowledge of labor law.

The other because he simply doesn't handle math very well, and has declined suggestions that he talk to someone who has studied basic calculus. So, he imagines even while the rate of a formula changes, the result will always be the same.

Novaseeker:"If you tend to believe that the end of the "system" is coming soonish, you'll be less interested in creating relief for men within the current scheme, and more interested in what replaces the current scheme in toto. If you tend to believe that it's unclear if/when the current system is coming to an end, you'll be more inclined to focus on creating relief within this system, flawed as it may be, rather than focusing on what replaces it in some rather uncertain future"

My feeling - I think that the system can go on awhile, certainly decades, but I'm not too fussed about creating relief for individual men, if creating that relief lessens the chances of long-term survival for my people as a whole. Eg I'm not going to support MGTOW since it means they don't reproduce, which means they don't contribute to the survival of the European peoples and their civilisation. I can't say I blame an individual man who opts out, but he ceases to be a factor. Whereas I think traditionalist guys with five kids do contribute significantly to our survival, especially if they can bring up their kids not to go liberal.

slwerner:"People Like Sarah Palin call themselves Social Conservatives, the media obliges them, and uses that term, and it ends up in common usage. It’s not an accurate reflection of what they stand for nor how they actually act. But, it’s a terminology to easily identifies what type of people we are speaking of."

Actually, it left me totally confused. I thought when MRAers spoke of 'social conservatives' they meant people like Lawrence Auster, Mark Richardson, Laura Wood. I had no idea they meant Sarah Palin! In the US 'social conservative' seems to mean simply 'against abortion'.

Many of the seemingly misdirected criticisms make a lot more sense now.

AlteBoycotting marriage is a viable solution because it has a relatively quick pay-off without requiring mass political action.

Excuse me, but when MRA's proposed that you traditionalists called them all sorts of names, including "evil". Josh/Thordaddy calls this "homo". Richardson rejects it, although he himself was MGTOW in his 20's. And so forth.

How do you reconcile this blatant contradiction? Or does the acceptableness of an idea depend on who proposes it: "MRA idea bad, SoCon/TradCon same idea good"?

Simon in London:Actually, it left me totally confused. I thought when MRAers spoke of 'social conservatives' they meant people like Lawrence Auster, Mark Richardson, Laura Wood. I had no idea they meant Sarah Palin! In the US 'social conservative' seems to mean simply 'against abortion'.

Many of the seemingly misdirected criticisms make a lot more sense now.

Please consider reading this rather long-winded comment on the topic. It's easier than reproducing it here.

Alte, if there is one thing that you traditionalist conservatives agree on, it is that men must marry. They must, must marry. It's their duty. Laura Woods insists on it, and calls anyone who suggests men not marry "evil". Numerous commenters here, from Simon in London to the ever popular "anonymous" have made it clear that marrying is a necessity. March Richardson is a bit less dogmatic, he doesn't insist men must marry but makes it clear they should.

This insistence that men must, must, must marry and reproduce no matter what happens to them in the process has been a constant refrain in trad-con blogs for a while now. It is one of the more off-putting aspects, frankly.

So it's a bit late in the game for you to pop up and suddenly reverse course, allowing as how maybe men might not marry after all. Does this make the point clearer?

Simon in LondonMy feeling - I think that the system can go on awhile, certainly decades, but I'm not too fussed about creating relief for individual men, if creating that relief lessens the chances of long-term survival for my people as a whole.

That is very, very interesting.

Eg I'm not going to support MGTOW since it means they don't reproduce, which means they don't contribute to the survival of the European peoples and their civilisation. I can't say I blame an individual man who opts out, but he ceases to be a factor. Whereas I think traditionalist guys with five kids do contribute significantly to our survival, especially if they can bring up their kids not to go liberal.

But of course, the choice for most men is not MGTOW or "traditionalist with five kids". The choice that you are pushing for the average man is neither.

The average man in his 20's is too much beta. So he can't attract any women, because the combination of feminist-created "independence" and female hypergamy means that most women are chasing about 20% of the young men, the alphas. These women have no hope of marrying one of these men, but won't admit that to themselves. So they will, as the MRA's say, "ride the cock carousel" for their 20's. Then, approaching 30, they suddenly find that they want to have a baby, and realize the bad-boy alphas they've been bedding are not going to willingly impregnate them, and won't stick around afterwards anyway.

So now, finally, they notice the average man. Now they decide to "settle". And they snag some sucker, marry him, and barring some infertility (say, from chlamydia or another STD they caught riding the carousel) the have a child. Maybe have another one. After 4 to 5 years of being married to a beta man, who becomes even more beta after childbirth, the romance wears off, and the bad-boy alphas of their 20's look better. Suddenly the happily married woman is no longer happy. She wants to get back out in the world. She wants "you go, grrl!" and she wants sex with alpha men.

So she dumps her chump husband, retaining custody of the children, the house, half of the marriage assets, and a nice child support/alimony check from the blindsided man. Then she can go back to the bar scene and get picked up by alpha men, maybe even bringing them back home with her as her new "boyfriend" to live. Thus she gets monetary resources from one man, enforced by the state with prison as an alternative, and sexual fun from another man. Oh, and the children stay with her. Because she's so much better for them than "dad".

That's what a lot of 20-something American men grew up with; "Father" to them is the guy who was around when they were little, and one day he had to put his stuff in some suitcases & move out, rarely to be seen again. "Father" is the guy who gets to be with his children for a few years, and when they are in preschool he has to leave. "Father" is the guy who lives in a crummy apartment because most of his paycheck goes to child support.

This is the reality for far too many men in America. 2/3 of divorces are filed by women. The majority of child custody goes to the mother. Family court is stacked against fathers.

And you, Simon in London, don't have a problem with it. So just how is it you are different from the feminists, again?

I understood your original point, I'm just disputing the idea that I've "changed course". Just because I post here doesn't mean I agree with everything Mark says, you know. The "groupie" jokes were just... jokes.

Virginia Senator Emmett Hanger:Emmett is a Christian and a member of the Emmanuel Church of the Brethren. He has been active in his church as a trustee, superintendent, moderator and teacher for many years. Emmett places his faith in God above all else. He understands that everything we have in life comes from God and he bases his leadership decisions on principles that are in keeping with his moral code of ethics. As a father of five and husband to Sharon, to whom he has been married for 37 years; Emmett Hanger has always been a leader for strong, traditional family values in Virginia.Seems like a solid American Social Conservative, with some traditional leanings.But, despite the fact that solid, peer reviewed academic studies indicate that woman often falsely claim that they were raped, and despite the knowledge that many men have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for rapes it turned out they never committed, Republican Emmett Hanger has an idea for dealing with those who are convicted of rape, that the idiot white-knight Jesse Powell would be proud of – castrate them.Now, who’s going to say that American Social Conservatives care about the rights of men?

AlteI understood your original point, I'm just disputing the idea that I've "changed course". Just because I post here doesn't mean I agree with everything Mark says, you know. The "groupie" jokes were just... jokes.

Well, I don't recall you ever saying anything remotely like this before, not when you posted on Spearhead, and not in the comments I've seen here. Although there are entire threads I've not read, and likely won't find time to, either.

"They need solutions NOW, and the MRA blogs give them choices with explanations of each choice."

What are the choices again?

a) Don't get married.b) Don't get married.c) Don't get married.etc

AR, you've described the situation very well, we still have to figure out what we're going to do though.

If a beta marries an "independent" women in her 30's, he is acknowledging that's its ok to marry a woman who is stronger than him. This leaves him in a vulnerable position because of the stacked system etc. Conservatives and traditionalists however argue that the man should be generally stronger than the woman. This means that he becomes his woman's alpha and so she is less likely to leave, over and above any cultural or social ideas of divorce.

What does this translate too? Well it means that the guy maybe can't marry the hottest girl on the block. If she's going to be "wild" she's not marriage material. It also means that the guy has to work hard to alpha himself up. This is what we mean when we say "man up". Conservatism offers lots of direction and support (historical guidance and various social supports including male roles) to men on how to do that and how to get there.

Jesse_7"They need solutions NOW, and the MRA blogs give them choices with explanations of each choice."

What are the choices again?

a) Don't get married.b) Don't get married.c) Don't get married.etc

Did you not bother to read a single thing that slwerner wrote in this thread? Because it certainly appears to be the case. I'll be charitable and assume you some how forgot that in addition to MGTOW, slwerner specifically listed "married man game" (athol and others) as a way to deal with some issues within marriage, as well as the whole PUA world (which he is explicitly not part of). My challenge to you is to go reread this thread. Then come back to this comment and admit that your description above is false.

AR, you've described the situation very well, we still have to figure out what we're going to do though.

Well, according to Alte we don't need to do anything. The impending economic crash will sort everything out. According to Simon in London it doesn't matter how lousy the lives of men are, so long as "his race" is preserved. According to Laura Woods, men just need to marry, and assert their will and that will fix everything. According to Jesse Powell, men just need to become patriarchs, i.e. "man up" and all will be well. According to Mark Richardson, all we need to do is move to his part of town and marry and all will be well.

Meanwhile, the evil MRA's make concrete suggestions, such as mandatory paternity testing so that men don't have to raise some other man's child without knowing about it. Evil, individualistic MRA's want shared custody to be the standard in divorce, thereby taking away the child-support gravy train. Evil, autonomistic, lazy, no good MRA's offer some solutions on a regular basis.

If a beta marries an "independent" women in her 30's, he is acknowledging that's its ok to marry a woman who is stronger than him.

But if he doesn't, then both feminists and trad-cons will shame him as a loser, slacker, etc. Guess what? Young men care less and less what names you and the feminists call them. That's what anonymous at 68 just demonstrated with his table of data, real data, something that trad-cons generally scorn.

This leaves him in a vulnerable position because of the stacked system etc. Conservatives and traditionalists however argue that the man should be generally stronger than the woman. This means that he becomes his woman's alpha and so she is less likely to leave, over and above any cultural or social ideas of divorce.

The MRA's are already solving that problem in two ways: warning young men to avoid the carousel riders and teaching "game" to the married men. But warning men to avoid carousel riders is "evil" according to Laura Woods, because it's "telling men not to marry", and trad cons demand men to marry. Marry someone. Just marry and reproduce.

What does this translate too? Well it means that the guy maybe can't marry the hottest girl on the block.

Duh. Do you ever read Roissy or Athol? It's axiomatic that a man should not marry a woman with higher sexual market value unless he has a great deal of "game". The MRA's are again ahead of you on this.

If she's going to be "wild" she's not marriage material. It also means that the guy has to work hard to alpha himself up. This is what we mean when we say "man up".

That's it? Use "game" to make himself more alpha, and that's going to end Affirmative Action, dismantle the family court system, stop the government from paying single women to have babies, restore respect for boys in the public schools, and end the discrimination against young men in colleges? Are you kidding?

And you trad-cons call the MRA's delusional?

Conservatism offers lots of direction and support (historical guidance and various social supports including male roles) to men on how to do that and how to get there.

Where? Where does conservatism offer these things? What conservative websites teach "married man game"? What conservative places teach men how to recognize women that are dangerous to them? All the sites I know of that do this are part of the "evil manosphere".

Conservative sites spend much of their time on abortion, homosexual marriage and party politics, from what I can tell.

I think you're misrepresnting my position. I read a lot of this manosphere stuff, whether its put out by political activists or men trying to make a buck offering advise. I'll remind you that I said I support a strong men's movement but not a selfish or despairing one.

We support all this law changing and paternity testing etc too, but don't forget you have men as part of the men's movement saying that all this is pointless. There shouldn't be leaders because that is oppressive. You can't change the system because its too entrenched. Conservatives are worse than feminists because they tell men to do things, one day at least. There are no other pressing social issues in our world but women and that men should be able to act in any way they wish.

Anon:"The average man in his 20's is too much beta. So he can't attract any women..."

This has not been my experience. I'm sure I'm very much 'beta' in your terms, and I married at 24, been married 14 years now. Of course I did exercise discretion over who I married. And I've seen no divorces at all in my generation amongst friends and family, although solitaryness is rather common - eg my sister is a spinster.

Not that I'm a 'trad' though, I live pretty much a SWPL lifestyle - I just think the traditionalists are where the future is, if there is any future.

anon:"And you, Simon in London, don't have a problem with it. So just how is it you are different from the feminists, again?"

I have a huge problem with it. I'm against it, the feminists are in favour of it. To the extent it's true of the UK, I vote against it where possible, I certainly speak against it.

I would say though that while the system is bad, the actual female behaviour you describe does not seem common, not anymore. Promiscuity remains common but divorce was much more a feature of the baby boomer generation now passing.

"Where? Where does conservatism offer these things? What conservative websites teach "married man game"? What conservative places teach men how to recognize women that are dangerous to them? All the sites I know of that do this are part of the "evil manosphere". "

This is what men in their groups do amongst themselves. When I joined the army women became "sluts" or "tarts" who should be viewed with suspicion. You hear men say things like "bro's before ho's". You don't need to go online to figure this out but guys do it amongst themselves. Especially in more conservative institutions where mentoring of younger men is encouraged. Its certainly not every man for themselves everywhere out there and a lot of this is crude. Should conservatives do more? I think its very clear that they should. The education of the next generation of people and men should be at the top of their priority list.

Churches I'm sure will also teach married men game to some degree, certainly they'll frequently offer advise on how to keep the marriage together, more than just the man or one party should always submit. Chruchs are a conservative institution and have an interest in making marriages last. At least they should, I will admit that many of them have become heavily female oriented.

If somebody puts out a book on "game" you yourself can't take personal credit for it, if you endorse it as a guide then to a degree you can. If you're encouraging men in positive ways then that's great and your readership will continue to grow. If you tell men that things are hopeless and that men should do whatever they can/want then decent men will turn away.

anon:"Meanwhile, the evil MRA's make concrete suggestions, such as mandatory paternity testing so that men don't have to raise some other man's child without knowing about it. Evil, individualistic MRA's want shared custody to be the standard in divorce, thereby taking away the child-support gravy train. "

We *all* support that stuff (or men-get-custody, or just ban divorce, etc).

Simon in LondonAnon:"According to Simon in London it doesn't matter how lousy the lives of men are, so long as "his race" is preserved."

No, it's a question of priorities. Your happiness has some value to me, but there are more important things, like the existence of future generations.

One of the reasons for the low birth rate in the US is a lower marriage rate. There are many reasons for the dropping marriage rate (see anonymous at 68's post for data) but surely a big elephant in the room is simply what a rotten deal marriage is for me.

Young men aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. They look at their own families, at their friends families, the see how fathers are mistreated. So if you actually care about future generations, you have to make it worthwhile for young men to marry.

Shaming and yelling at them isn't working.

Also, the guy who risks the traditionalist path to bring home the bacon and bring up a bunch of kids with a good woman deserves praise for this heroic endeavour.

I'll agree with this. But if you'd bothered to read my posting, instead of skim it, you would have noted that most men don't get that option.

Jesse_7I think you're misrepresnting my position. I read a lot of this manosphere stuff, whether its put out by political activists or men trying to make a buck offering advise. I'll remind you that I said I support a strong men's movement but not a selfish or despairing one.

For what definition of "selfish"? Is self-preservation "selfish"?

We support all this law changing and paternity testing etc too,

No, you talk about it. But at least in the US, when some handful of crazy men try to get a legislature to actually do some of it, the most that can be expected from social conservatives is nothing. It's actually a boon, to be ignored by the likes of "Concerned Women for America", because of the long history of socon's allying with feminists.

Such as when the socon's darling, President G.W. Bush signed a renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act", to pick one example. Or when current socon darling Sarah Palin sat down with aging feminist Geraldine Ferraro to talk about how rotten men are, just to pick another.

but don't forget you have men as part of the men's movement saying that all this is pointless. There shouldn't be leaders because that is oppressive. You can't change the system because its too entrenched. Conservatives are worse than feminists because they tell men to do things, one day at least. There are no other pressing social issues in our world but women and that men should be able to act in any way they wish.

As slwerner already told you, there's no real "men's movement", there's a collection of men who are angry about the current situation and are reacting in various ways. Some follow Roissy and become pick up artists. Some are trying to get by, burned badly by their former girlfriends or wives. Some are sheltering their families the best they can. Some are going their own way in despair or bitterness.

So if you want to make a difference, stop pointing fingers and whining about men who are trying to defend themselves from the onslaught of feminism. Maybe try listening once in a while? That includes actually reading what people write, rather than just skimming for a talking point to attack.

Meanwhile, the socons do what? Oppose abortion, homosexual marriage, and play politics while feminists march on.

Simon in LondonAnon:"The average man in his 20's is too much beta. So he can't attract any women..."

This has not been my experience. I'm sure I'm very much 'beta' in your terms, and I married at 24, been married 14 years now.

So you married in 1996. And of course, the culture for young men is just the same as it was in 1996, right? Hookup culture is much more intense than it was then.

Of course I did exercise discretion over who I married. And I've seen no divorces at all in my generation amongst friends and family, although solitaryness is rather common - eg my sister is a spinster.

Then I guess you must be a toff. Because in Britain, it's more typical for a man to either be divorced, or never married nowadays according to your Home Office reports. And frankly, you have to be upper crust to not have seen any divorces in your family or friends. I saw one of my friends divorced before I was 30 years old.

Not that I'm a 'trad' though, I live pretty much a SWPL lifestyle - I just think the traditionalists are where the future is, if there is any future.

Oh, so you talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Thanks for that datum.

At the risk of never being read on such a long thread, I feel obliged to point out that social conservatives and many supporters of men's rights have more in common than in opposition. For a start, each group seems to see the other as a monolith, while viewing itself as fractured and weak.

As slwerner noted, there are a lot of different men (and some women) who consider themselves to be supporters of men's rights. Some of them are just interested in a good time, reaping the harvest of feminist female independence; the pick up artists. Some are sad, or bitter, or both and more, determined to avoid women at all cost. Some are married and feel trapped, or wish to restore their marriage to what it used to be.

It is imprudent to assume that anyone who posts on some web site is automatically part of a movement. So it might be a good idea for traditionalists to not be so quick to assume that every poster on Spearhead is some sort of spokesman for the MRA. It might be a good idea for MRA's to not assume that every poster here or on other traditionalist sites is a spokesman or spokeswoman for all traditionalists.

I think there are a couple of key issues that ought to be discussed in a calm way. First, the MRA's do have a point regarding the lack of support that traditional conservatives offer. I'm pointing out over at the Spearhead that just because someone calls themself a social conservative, does not make it so, and it ought to take more than just opposing abortion (and in the US, voting Republican) to be considered a social conservative. Nevertheless, there is a definite attitude that can be seen within too many traditionalist writings that is a kind of magical thinking: that if a traditionalist man marries a "good woman" (definition usually quite vague) and he is "man enough" for her, that his marriage will be all right. That's just not true anymore. There are too many incentives for women to behave badly.

I think that Dalrock's site is useful in this regard, in that he's put up some clear warning signs to look for in a woman, that can warn a young man in advance. He's also taken churches to task for their near silence on the issue of divorce.

Second, the traditionalists have a point as well, and that is that a marriage is more stable within a stable community. It's going to be very difficult for a marriage to survive unless the man and woman are part of a larger community of married, stable couples. And that means some kind of community of faith, theologically conservative as well as culturally conservative. Some men are not going to want to go that route, but I fear they are courting danger. There are too many divorces, or annullments in the Catholic church, within faith communities for my taste. And far too many churches are essentially social clubs. And yes, even in a culturally and theologically conservative church, it is possible to be tempted to stray.

But in my opinion it's the best, most workable option. And that excludes the PUA's, some of the MGTOW's as well. Coming to accept something bigger than yourself that isn't government is hard, but it does offer a stable life.

a) He's in his 60s. Some men of that age who grew up in a more intact culture didn't have to think a lot about gender issues. Younger social conservatives have changed, I think, because of their experience with the modern sort of woman.

b) There are about 8 US states which have approved either physical or chemical castration. Is it really the case that such laws were only advocated by those on the political right?

c) I'm struck again by how much tougher Americans are when it comes to sentencing.

One of the main beefs the MRA's seem to have with Tradcons is the idea that Traditionalists are going around saying men MUST marry no matter what.

As someone who considers themself a traditionalist I disagree.

A man SHOULD marry if he can find a good woman, and he should put some time and effort into finding that woman, but if such a woman cannot be found I have to say I can completely understand those who do not wish to marry.

In a perfect world most of us would be able to find a woman worthy of being a mother to our children, in the modern world that is increasingly difficult.

Although I certainly do not know him well, I've spoken with him for long enough to get a sense of what he's about. Basically, he's about: doing stuff to help men. Concrete stuff. In legislatures. Stuff concerning CS levels and custody and visitation rights. Stuff concerning DV practices and presumptions and so on.

Yet he gets relentlessly attacked for being a "feminist" because his group phrases its arguments in ways designed to garner support WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM. That is, he uses "equality" and "fairness" and so on as key arguments, and he is getting some results. He is persistent, and my own sense is that his politics are liberal. But he is actually out there getting stuff done that will help men in the *now*.

Much more than most MRAs, to be sure, but Glenn Sacks is clearly an MRA.

I haven't seen any social conservative or traditional conservative or whatever lift one finger along these lines. Perhaps in some cases it is because of attitudes like Simon -- couldn't care less if it doesn't benefit his race in the long run. Perhaps it's because people think the end is coming tomorrow so why bother. Perhaps it's because people think someone like Glenn Sacks is a "de facto homo" for phrasing his legislative pitch in the language of "devout dykism" or some other such concocted psychopathic nonsense. But for whatever reason, no-one wants to lift a finger.

Glenn Sacks does. And that's the difference between MRAs and Trads, when it comes to men's issues, in my opinion.

"I haven't seen any social conservative or traditional conservative or whatever lift one finger along these lines. "

What about a school teacher who gives extra time to help the male students because he recognises that they'll need it? You'll see this in lots of conservative schools.

What about the people that make up charity organisations like the Salvo's? They help lots of men and yes they're conservative.

I go to the army reserve and I make sure that my men are capable and ready to face challenges in life? Why? Because if I don't they'll be ineffective as soldiers. This kind of attitude is common across the army, and you'll hear commanders say things like "The things I've learned about and am fairly on top of now being a commander, from financial to legal, medical, social or psychological issues". Commanders are expected to do this and its part of the job and the army is a conservative organisation.

Conservatives generally aren't that activist when it comes to pushing legal changes and increasingly they should, but don't say we do nothing. We don't play xbox that's for sure.

Conservatives generally aren't that activist when it comes to pushing legal changes and increasingly they should, but don't say we do nothing. We don't play xbox that's for sure.

Okay, I'm a political conservative as well. But I certainly appreciate a guy like Glenn who actually busts his ass to do stuff to alleviate injustices against men under the current system -- despite his politics, he has my financial support, because of what he actually does.

I have my own ideology, but I am also a pragmatist. Getting stuff done matters. Feminism proves that.

I'm pointing out that an economic collapse does not necessarily lead to a social change, and the entire former Warsaw Pact plus what is now the CIS proves my point. Feminism is resurgent in Ukraine and Russia, for example. Abortion is still the leading form of birth control. The social structure is pretty much as it was 25 years ago.

If nearly a generation after an economic collapse no significant cultural changes have occurred, I do not see how it can but prove my point.

That's because the Soviet regime and the US regime were/are the flip-side of the same coin. When the USSR collapsed, it was the US model which rushed in to fill up the vacuum. The planned economy disappeared but on social issues there was never much disagreement.

Novaseeker I totally agree with you. I think one of the reasons that conservatives are less activist on this issue is that they might be less likely to get divorced? Otherwise its because they don't like to pry into people's marriages and private lives generally or else they think its each man is on his own when it comes to marriages. Either way we have to be more vocal on this issue.

The thing is though, that you all should support guys like Glenn. Even though it makes you nauseous as a tradcon. And the reasons why people dont do so tend to bring up the old tradcon/MRA dichotomy again.

In Australia, for instance, for about 30 years, men's issues were championed by two social conservatives, Babette Francis and Bill Muehlenberg.

They have done a lot of pragmatic things, including appearing before parliamentary hearings, getting themselves recognised as representatives to UN conferences, holding public meetings and getting articles printed in the major daily newspapers here.

I myself produced a magazine which covered men's issues back in the 1990s and distributed many thousands of copies for several years at Melbourne University. I've had letters published in the major papers (one of which may have cost me a job) and I've contributed to men's rights sites for several years, to the degree that a term I coined, "patriarchy theory", has been picked up and is becoming more widely used in the MRM.

Novaseeker, I've read Glenn Sacks with interest over the years. My impression to date has been a favourable one.

Actually Novaseeker, calling an ideology that has as its essence man-hate and aversion for femininity "feminism" is irrationally liberal. It is much more truthful to point out that "feminism" is the devout dyke nature politically manifested.

And calling for a marriage strike on account of no worthy women worth marrying is the cry of the radical male autonomist. It is an embrace of homosexual nature.

If you are a male liberationist standing by the notion that there are no women worthy of marriage and so you call for a "collective" separatism from woman then you are embracing de facto homo-ism.

If this is not the case, what do YOU call male separatism based on a spiritual, emotional and physical aversion for woman?

You fool... You call it normal and castigate those that see for what it is.

If Glen Sacks was really smart he would be teaching boys how to stay out of the courthouse, period.

We can't always stay out of the court houses and its important that somebody argues for reform there. As Mark has said this kind of political activism isn't easy and is a real sacrifice worthy of respect.

Novaseeker in this thread, at least, wasn't pushing for separatism but for activism.

And he's no fool. He's contributed to the quality of quite a few discussion threads at this site.

Perhaps a problem here, one that will be difficult to overcome, is that MRAs are focused on one particular area of modernity gone wrong, whereas trads recognise a broader range of issues stemming from a common source.

So it's difficult for trads to drop everything else and to focus, like Glenn Sacks, on legislative reform in one particular area.

It doesn't mean we can't contribute or that we don't consider the men's rights issue to be highly significant. But I'm not sure we can be what some in the men's rights movement want us to be.

anon:"Then I guess you must be a toff. Because in Britain, it's more typical for a man to either be divorced, or never married nowadays according to your Home Office reports"

I'm an academic and I have an upper-middle-class family income, but we're not socially part of the upper-middle-class (my mother is from a very poor Northern Ireland working class background), although my English half-cousins are. My in-laws are American Southerners, non-elite middle class. My old school friends are Northern Ireland working class.

No divorces in any of these groups. If there's a common factor it is not social class or wealth, but high IQ. Also, in the case of my US in-laws, their parents' generation was ravaged by divorce and they seem determined not to visit the same sin on their own children.

More broadly, what we see among the native English lower-to-middle classes is not divorce, but long term cohabitation without marriage. This was strongly encouraged by the Labour government in particular.

NB I'm not familiar with mores of Americans outside the South. It may be that the late marriage + divorce behaviour you describe is common across much of the US. Amongst Southerners the following seems standard, currently:

Nova:"I haven't seen any social conservative or traditional conservative or whatever lift one finger along these lines. Perhaps in some cases it is because of attitudes like Simon -- couldn't care less if it doesn't benefit his race in the long run"

I'm only just learning about traditionalism the past couple years, and starting to take what I can from it to inform my own life, and what I say to others - trying where possibly to nudge people in a traditionalist direction if European, or in a more liberal direction if they're Pashtun tribesmen. But I'm impressed by how real traditionalists like Mark will go out on a limb with their advocacy.

Being raised as an ethnic Ulster Protestant, I grew up hostile to Catholicism. Also, Catholics were classed as a cultural Marxist victim group along with blacks, gays, women etc. Recently though the dominant cultural Marxist elites have been strongly attacking Catholicism, while at the same time I've been encountering a lot of valuable thinking from traditionalist Catholic sources. So that has been the big change for me in the past few years.

"So it's difficult for trads to drop everything else and to focus, like Glenn Sacks, on legislative reform in one particular area."

It would be interesting to list the priorities. In my personal life I see getting ready for a marriage to be a huge deal, but I see this mostly in terms of improving my desirability and self control to attract a suitable partner and to not be rolled by a bad one. When it comes to politics I worry mostly about foreigners and low birth rates. I'm not sure I can see myself picketing the courts but perhaps I should.

I'm not sure I can see myself picketing the courts but perhaps I should.

I'm not sure how far you get as an individual acting alone. The encouraging thing right now is seeing movements emerge - maybe not organised movements, but a sizeable number of people speaking out.

I see it in the online comments when gender issues are raised. Often now it's the MRA types who are most effective in the discussion.

And the left is no longer able to dominate or to stamp itself on politics the way it was once able to. We saw that in the aftermath of the Jared Loughner shooting - the attempt to portray Loughner as a Tea Partying rightist failed because there were too many voices across the internet pointing out the flaws in the leftist position.

It's the development of the movements we should be interested in contributing to right now.

I think that the father's rights groups are very much on the political agenda now and so we should give them as much support as we can. I know they’ve received several advances in Australia and I did expect substantial divorce court reform to be on the agenda if the Howard govt was reelected. Not surprisingly the issue has died down under the Labor govt. Are there any politically active people in Australia reading this who can give us more info?

Perhaps it's because people think the end is coming tomorrow so why bother.

Well, I'm feeling a bit fatalistic lately, so I suppose I was exaggerating. I do bother actually, and I agitate (with surprising) success for such changes among the women I know, but I do get the sense that such changes will become much easier in a few years. Right now it's like watching paint dry, although I'm naturally impatient.

So it's difficult for trads to drop everything else and to focus, like Glenn Sacks, on legislative reform in one particular area.

I suppose that's why I get criticized, as well. I'm pretty supportive of men's rights, but it's not my only focus. I'm also very interested in reforming (or preserving) patriarchy and orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, for instance, and a lot of my personal political efforts are focused on that. I see the Church as a possible catalyst for future political reform, as well, so I spend a lot of my real-life efforts there (something that most on-line people aren't aware of).

And where traditionalism or MRM diverge from Catholicism, I choose Catholicism. A lot of MRA's have no patience for religiosity unless it serves their own purposes or is otherwise expedient. The fact that such an attitude is what weakened patriarchy, to begin with, seems to escape them.

Late to the conversation (sorry Mark), but since one of my comments at The Spearhead was the subject of discussion, I figured I'd roll in.

"Anonymous said...

slwerner, ironically, the very comment you link to, supports my view:

'“We American men are providers. We are breadwinners. That’s our role. Take it away, and we have nothing to offer. “

It is high time we men had our liberation movement.'

So which is it, do MRAs wish to return to the traditional roles for both men and women or do they want to abolish them alltogether. I'm confused. Wednesday, 26 January 2011 6:28:00 AM AEDT "

I can see how my comment could be confusing. Here's what I was trying to say:

I do not wish for a return to "traditional" roles for men and women that socons seem to advocate. Nor do I advocate for the abolishment of sex roles, as the liberals push for.

This is because I view "traditional" roles as "industrial revolution" sex roles. In other words, roles tailored for the post industrial-rev family that limited the role of the man to breadwinner and made the woman the de facto head of the household. This is the "traditional" family model that I view socons as trying to push us back toward, and in the present legal/social climate, that equals more oppression for men while permitting women to run roughshod over men and children.

I declare myself to be part of the patriarchal wing that is resident at the Spearhead and agitate for a return to Biblical roles, which for men are far more than merely a source of income for his family and/or society. Liberation for me is release from the men-only-as-economic-provider paradigm.

When I speak of men's liberation, this is to what I refer. Men must be free to be the men they are called to be, not oxen hooked up to the plow to enable the liberal female fantasy of "independence".

(Although I must admit I do not think a return to a Biblical model is happening anytime soon, thus liberating men from their industrial-rev 'gender' role would also have the effect of restoring more of the legal and social balance between the sexes. So maybe in a sense I'm trying to have it both ways).

My beef with socons is that I see them as those who oppose abortion and homogamy, but otherwise toe the fem-liberal line and work to keep men on the government-sharecropper plantation. Perhaps this is too prejudicial a view, but I have yet to see anything substantive from the socon camp to warm my heart to their machinations.

So it's difficult for trads to drop everything else and to focus, like Glenn Sacks, on legislative reform in one particular area.

It doesn't mean we can't contribute or that we don't consider the men's rights issue to be highly significant. But I'm not sure we can be what some in the men's rights movement want us to be.

This is fine, I think. As I see it, the two groups have different purposes.

But, what we don't need are people like Josh calling MRAs de facto homos. I know you and Jesse_7 (not the Jesse at Laura's blog) and so on are not at all like that -- any movement has its reasonable people and its cranks, but some of the cranks in the trad camp are too dismissive of MRAs at times, I think, and I think it's also true that MRAs are often too dismissive of any group with an overarching ideology.

Simply put: trads exist to provide an overarching framework and structure for living life, and a view to the longer term future, whereas MRAs exist to help men in concrete ways here and now, in a more focused and less ideological way. These two groups *can* coexist (with some tension), provided that ideologies or hatred of ideologies, as it were, on both sides do not become too rigid.

And where traditionalism or MRM diverge from Catholicism, I choose Catholicism. A lot of MRA's have no patience for religiosity unless it serves their own purposes or is otherwise expedient. The fact that such an attitude is what weakened patriarchy, to begin with, seems to escape them.

And that's great, too, because that's what *you* are destined to do, and the role you are destined to play.

It all fits together, at some level, even if we sometimes obscure that in our own respective myopias.

Being raised as an ethnic Ulster Protestant, I grew up hostile to Catholicism. Also, Catholics were classed as a cultural Marxist victim group along with blacks, gays, women etc. Recently though the dominant cultural Marxist elites have been strongly attacking Catholicism, while at the same time I've been encountering a lot of valuable thinking from traditionalist Catholic sources. So that has been the big change for me in the past few years.

And that's good news! I'm Eastern Orthodox (was Catholic before that and raised such), but it's all interesting. I didn't mean to call you out personally, as well, but was reacting to something you had written. It sounds like the journey you're on is both interesting and sound.

Novaseeker, totally. Given the potentially very socially destructive nature of the divorce issue though I do think it has to be an absolute priority at the moment, so I think I'll join a father's rights group. We shouldn't wait till we're divorced to take an active interest in this issue. If anyone knows of a good one in Sydney I'd be interested, thanks.

The problem with male liberationists is that they have no compunction in lying and so they propogate falsehoods such as "thordaddy is saying all MRA's are homos." False.

In fact, there is undoubtedly a very vocal and boisterous aspect of the MRM that IS AVERSE TO WOMAN. As has been clearly documented here on Ozcon these "men" advocate "no marriage" BECAUSE there are no good women.

This is toxic nonsense of the type that creates the Jared Loughners of our time. This is the CALL of the radical homosexual.

Any "man" that calls for a "marriage strike" founded on the notion that there are no worthy women worth marrying is not a man. He is a de facto homo.

Cry about it if you like, Novaseeker. But if you are now claiming to be Eastern Orthodox then tell us how man and male homosexual move together in this erroneously named "men's movement?"

I declare myself to be part of the patriarchal wing that is resident at the Spearhead and agitate for a return to Biblical roles, which for men are far more than merely a source of income for his family and/or society.

Well... yes. But so do the rest of us, I think. Nobody really wants to return to the days where men were marginalized in their own homes, as if they were just talking wallets. I think you'll like a review I have coming up about the book Radical Homemakers, as I will touch on that.

A ferocity which can be a powerful force for goodness and prosperity... if it is properly harnessed and directed. The problem the West has is that it has severed women's incentives to profit through their husbands; instead pushing them to profit at their husband's expense.

When I look at my older German relatives, the men are quite easy-going, low-maintenance, humbly intelligent, and capable. The women are -- as you so delicately put it -- ferocious: shrewd, ambitious, outspoken, etc. My husband and I are like that too, I suspect (stop laughing).

But in their generation that actually worked out really well, and it works out well for us. It's actually a very powerful combination. I don't think the essential problem is with the inherent nature of Western women, but with the society and the laws that surround them.

"If the aim is always to maximise autonomy, then whatever impedes our ability to self-determine will start to be looked on negatively as a restriction, a prison, from which the individual has to be liberated."

Factory:

This is where I think your argument starts to fall apart. Frankly, this idea that the MRM is largely supportive of autonomy is hogwash. There are contentious issues that we fight that fall on either side of that divide, and many that fall on both.

For instance, take Child Support. There exist a whole range of views among the MRM...

1) Child support, as a concept, in this world where women have the right to abandon children, but men have no reproductive choice, is an affront to the very basis of law in this country.

2) Child support should be unnecessary in most cases, and reasonable only when a man refuses shared parenting.

3) Child Support is artificially high expressly to fill State coffers through kickbacks and commissions on collected support money (true).

4) Child Support is just fine the way it is.

Pretty divergent starting points. But most agree that the answer is to grant men the same reproductive rights as women. Because that disparity is the source of many problems, not least of which is the Divorce rate itself. And, for that matter, the cause of a 41% overall illegitimacy rate.

But even in the light of these things, many Trads will argue against these reforms, simply because they oppose men being able to walk away. Based on moral grounds.

Which then means they have to invent a 'real reason' for divorce and single moms.

So they focus on Gay Marriage. Is this because gay men are wrecking the institution? No, it's because morally speaking, Trads find gay marriage a perversion. So you take perfectly rational explanations for social ills that undermine your very ideals, and throw them out the window in order to make demonizing your pet bad guys easier.

And when we ask why you won't take the issues seriously, you arrogantly demand we 'man up'. This is VERY close to the same treatment we get from Feminists, and the Gender ones at that.

It is this strict adherence to ideology over reality, this willingness to bend to personal bias rather than facts, that equate you to Feminists in many MRAs eyes'.

And frankly you have no one but yourselves to blame, since it is both true, and happening right in this very thread.

Like I said earlier. I have no idea at all why you would want to separate yourselves from the Mens Movement barring some massive ideological difference.

I'm here to tell you there really isn't one, since the MRM has no ideology to follow, other than perhaps the Constitution and...ahem...Judeo Christian tradition.

It's not that we have issue with people who have an ideology. Most everyone does on a personal level, but we sublimate them in recognition of the reality we face when needed, and acceptable personally.

Refusing to be part of the conversation (one even feminists are trying desperately to be included in as an equal) simply makes no sense, unless your goal is to place yourself as separate from us for political purposes, in which case you're delusional. We're routinely painted as right wing religious fanatics. That's right, in order to smear us, they're accusing us of being you.

Which strikes me as thoroughly ironic.

But anyway, back to the autonomy thing...

Most of us have a weird mix of religious/traditional beliefs, and anger at reality. We take those religious / cultural beliefs as a desired goal (ie, marriage), then look at the obstacles standing in the way of attaining it. Sometimes this reveals ugly truths, sometimes it reinforces traditional concepts, sometimes it sheds new light, and sometimes it's crap.

We're still figuring stuff out. That's why the conversation is so important, and why your (seemingly petulant) absence is so queer. Standing on principle and clinging to bias are not the same thing.

""I don't think the essential problem is with the inherent nature of Western women, but with the society and the laws that surround them.""

THAT is the perfect Traditionalist position.

Traditionalists believe that men and Women have inherent natures, that these natures are good and that when left to their own devices those natures will out.

This explains Mark's observation that at the school where he works most of the Gen X women are mothers, and i can tell from my own experiences that older gen Y women seem to be going the same way.

When the brainwashing from university wears off most men and women do what is natural, and in most cases it feels more natural for the man to go back to work during the first stages of childhood development.

"Traditionalists believe that men and Women have inherent natures, that these natures are good and that when left to their own devices those natures will out."

I don't know about that. The desire to "grab" is also inherent and it has to be disciplined. If you leave kids to their own devices they might just eat candy all day, and then its tummy aches and feeling lousy.

You asked me earlier why I had a problem with autonomy and I tried to briefly explain how liberal autonomy theory ends up having bad consequences.

I wasn't directing that particular critique at the men's movement, but at the logic of liberal politics in a general sense.

Trads do want divorce law/child support/custody reforms. Personally, I think it's unjust and socially destructive to allow women to choose to divorce a husband without good cause and then to expect custody/child support/alimony.

Yes, we're opposed to gay marriage. But I've always thought that the larger issue is the change to the culture of marriage amongst the heterosexual majority. Having said that, gay marriage isn't going to help. It will only strengthen the idea that children don't need a parent of either sex, so that the role of men will be further marginalised.

I'm not trying to separate myself from the MRM or refusing to be part of the conversation. I read a lot of material, I comment frequently at MRA sites and I post a lot of items on gender issues here.

I consider myself one of the proto-MRAs. I was active by the late 90s. I've followed the growth of the MRM with much interest.

"But most agree that the answer is to grant men the same reproductive rights as women. Because that disparity is the source of many problems, not least of which is the Divorce rate itself. And, for that matter, the cause of a 41% overall illegitimacy rate."

In my country men have "reproductive rights". Unmarried men can opt out of fatherhood and won't be liable for child support, which too many do. The mother then proceeds to leech of the state. The rate of illegitimacy is exactly the same as in America.

Many men consider it unfair that their taxes must pay for the other men' s illegitimate children.

The problem of illegitimacy and divorce won't be solved solely by giving men more rights, without the return to the traditional morality, supported by the state and enforced by society in general; and that won't happen while liberalism is the dominating ideology in the West.

Currently she's off on a three-day conference jaunt, while I look after the critter, when not at work.

The upside of our somewhat unbalanced division of responsibilities is that I don't have to worry much about divorce, it would be lose-lose for her.

(Sorry to the trads, just feeling a bit grumpy she left the house looking like a rubbish tip before jetting off to her conference. If she'd picked her clothes off the floor and/or stacked the dishwasher before leaving, I'd be much happier).

anon:"Men are just as marginalised in their homes as they allow themselves to be. I did notice that American men especially have some unhealthy sort of deference to women which is absent in other cultures."

It's common in the British Isles, except not so much in southern England. Certainly in Ireland the women tend to keep their husbands in a sort of infantilised state.

My vague impression though is that in the US, outside the Southern states, there is often a particularly dysfunctional male-female relationship where women use passive-aggressive techniques to control their husbands. The result can be that the deferential husband becomes an object of contempt and thus divorce. This seems to be the source of the Roissyite view of marriage.

My vague impression though is that in the US, outside the Southern states, there is often a particularly dysfunctional male-female relationship where women use passive-aggressive techniques to control their husbands. The result can be that the deferential husband becomes an object of contempt and thus divorce. This seems to be the source of the Roissyite view of marriage.

It's more that women are generally taught (at the latest in the one or two women's studies classes that they virtually all take in college, but in many cases earlier than that) to view male/female relationships in an essentially political way -- that is, that they are about power, relative power, between the two, and that if they don't try to assert their "power" in the relationship, the husband will dominate them as men have dominated and exploited women (per this perspective) since time immemorial. So, they try to assert power and, being women, this is most typically done in a roundabout way which one might call passive-aggressive. The guys are typically not pushing back, because they have also been taught that they should be accommodating to women and not "controlling" or "pushy" and so they tend to give in to the wives and let the wives win these battles.

What happens after that, often, is that the wife, despite her "intellectual" upbringing about power politics in male/female relationships, finds that, more viscerally, she is losing attraction to her husband because he gives in to her too much. And then the cycle begins of "falling out of love" and so on, leading to divorces and much bitterness. This is certainly not the case in *all* divorces -- there are some truly bad marriages, and there are quite a few men who misbehave badly in marriages as well. But the "garden variety" middle class/upper middle class divorce in the USA is typically an "I just fell out of love" divorce -- which is generally code for "my husband wasn't alpha enough for me to stay attracted to him". That usually happens because the husband doesn't push back (as he was taught not to do so) when the wife asserts her power (as she was taught to do), and things roll downhill from there.

The way we are socializing boys and girls and young men and women about sex relations is what is dysfunctional, because it plays itself out in particularly dysfunctional ways in too many marriages.

Novaseeker:"It's more that women are generally taught (at the latest in the one or two women's studies classes that they virtually all take in college, but in many cases earlier than that) to view male/female relationships in an essentially political way -- that is, that they are about power, relative power, between the two, and that if they don't try to assert their "power" in the relationship, the husband will dominate them as men have dominated and exploited women (per this perspective) since time immemorial"

I've noticed that the US University system seems far more effective at this sort of cultural Marxist indoctrination than is the UK system (which I work in). In the UK students specialise very early, in the last 2 years of secondary school, and you only do eg 'woman's studies' as a 3-year degree focused on that area, ie it's preaching to the converted. Typically a student does 3 years of Geology, or Law, or Physics, or Media Studies. There is little concept of the 'broad liberal education ideal' which was perverted in the US into a tool of c-M indoctrination.

With many subjects, UK leftist academics do *try* to inject the cultural Marxism, but it's an uphill task with eg Geology, or even Law, since a recognised Law degree has to spend most of its time teaching actual Law, not c-M.

I'll post a link to the post on here, when it goes up. The book was very interesting.

I don't know about that. The desire to "grab" is also inherent and it has to be disciplined.

I suppose I think that the inherent natures are good when they are placed within God's Order (patriarchy, Natural Law, etc.) So I suppose I would consider our society "disordered", and it is that, coupled with our tendency to sin, which creates so many problems for us all.

Although that might just be my German penchant for Ordnung coming through.

I don't think US women are getting their ideas from "women's studies" courses -- or at any rate, not just from them. It would give academia too much credit to assert that a course or two taken in college, if they take it at all, shapes a woman's attitude towards men for the rest of her life. US women get their passive-aggressive attitude from a variety of sources, both before college and after, but I suspect pop culture has a lot more to do with it than academia. "Liberated woman who rejects her husband's stifling domination" is an endlessly repeated theme of books, magazines, TV, and movies. (The corollary theme is "and then finds True Love with a Mysterious, Powerful Stranger"). It may be true that the writers of all this tripe get this from their academic training in women's studies, of course.

"The problem of illegitimacy and divorce won't be solved solely by giving men more rights, without the return to the traditional morality, supported by the state and enforced by society in general; and that won't happen while liberalism is the dominating ideology in the West."

I agree but giving women a loaded shotgun and a belly full of self righteousness is just too tempting for them.

"That usually happens because the husband doesn't push back (as he was taught not to do so) when the wife asserts her power (as she was taught to do), and things roll downhill from there."

I've seen this a lot, but it seems to me that the guys who don't kick back so much have longer lasting relationships, at least when they're younger. I'd look at guys say "yesum" to their girls all the time, and I'd say "oh god isn't that tedious", but their relationships would last. Mine would never last that long because I'd say no. I've learnt to mix in more yeses and mine are lasting longer.

Obviously there's a danger of being a patsy but I personally don't think there's any magic solution to this. I know people rave about game, but if game is just keeping the upper hand, well it seems a bit of a pain in the ass for the guy to be honest and also potentially oppressive for the woman. Now you might say "but you have to do that" but I'd much prefer the woman to have a few more internal restraints, ie good breeding, virtue/manners, then everyone can get on a little more easily. Wishful thinking perhaps.

I've seen this a lot, but it seems to me that the guys who don't kick back so much have longer lasting relationships, at least when they're younger. I'd look at guys say "yesum" to their girls all the time, and I'd say "oh god isn't that tedious", but their relationships would last. Mine would never last that long because I'd say no. I've learnt to mix in more yeses and mine are lasting longer.

It's a timing/cycling issue I think.

At first, women *do* like it when behave like that. It's only of the course of a longer period of time -- say, years, in the context of a marriage -- that she sours on it, and begins to lose attraction. In marriages (at least in the US), the "red zone" for divorce is between 3 and 7 years in. Make it past that, and the likelihood of a breakup decreases substantially. But it also seems that it takes several years for the "I just fell out of love" phenomenon to develop -- women don't feel that way at the *beginning*, really, when men defer to them in that way, often.

I agree that using some game techniques like Dave in Hawaii or Athol Kay recommend is tedious over the long term. But it also seems to be fairly effective. Slwerner has also had a lot of success with a similar approach in terms of overcoming some difficulties earlier in his marriage. It seems to work, although, as I say, I'll agree that it's a pain in the ass. At the same time, a woman maintaining her appearance over the long term in a marriage is also a bit of a pain in the ass for her, really, so perhaps it isn't so different.

Good point. However, can we see game as a force or power tactic? The Cultural marxists see everything in terms of power relations, and isn't that what we're doing when we use game as well? Thanks.

I guess it depends on the intention.

If you're doing it as a power play to maintain control and so on, then I suppose one could view it that way. If, on the other hand, you're doing it to remain attractive to your wife and preserve your marriage, in light of what seems to be needed to maintain wifely attraction in the 21st century, then I'd say it isn't a c-m approach in intention, but more of an evo-psych/attraction approach.

I suppose conversely a woman maintaining her looks over the long term could also be viewed in power terms -- that is, as a way of manipulating her husband sexually via her appearance more effectively, or by retaining more easy "options", which is also a form of power in relationships. Or it could be that she's doing it because she loves her husband and wants to maintain his attraction.

Have any of you guys read C.Lewis "Narnia" series? In the book called "The Silver Chair" a Narnian prince falls under the spell of a wicked witch who appears in the form of a beautiful lady.

Two English children are sent to resque him and they are trying to break the spell by talking to him. The witch is pressing the Prince into marriage and he being under spell says what a pleasure it would be to serve her and to follow her lead, to which the girl says that in her country people laugh at men who are under their wives' thumb and see them as wimps.

It has always been my favourite book of the series. Modern men need to grow some backbone and stop being doormats to their wives/girlfriends.

As a husband, I think you have to know when to say "No", and when to say "Yes, but". Eg: when I really *needed* my wife to shut up and go indoors, to avoid a street altercation with another driver, she did so. She grumbled a bit later on, but she respected my authority when I used the This Is Really Important voice.

"Trads do want divorce law/child support/custody reforms. Personally, I think it's unjust and socially destructive to allow women to choose to divorce a husband without good cause and then to expect custody/child support/alimony.

Yes, we're opposed to gay marriage. But I've always thought that the larger issue is the change to the culture of marriage amongst the heterosexual majority. Having said that, gay marriage isn't going to help. It will only strengthen the idea that children don't need a parent of either sex, so that the role of men will be further marginalised."

If that were in ANY way an accurate representation of the priorities of the Trads out there, we would have heard at least SOMETHING from the 'religious right' along the lines you say in your first paragraph.

But we don't. Ever.

We hear a LOT about 'gay marriage', to the point where it's forcing parliamentary debates and legal changes and media discussions. Even though you yourself admit Gay Marriage is nowhere NEAR as destructive to the majority of your ideals as, say, no fault divorce.

But none of you say a word about No Fault, or female hypergamy, or really ANYTHING all that different from Feminists when it comes to 'traditional' things like supporting your woman and children.

Personally, I don't believe many of you are anything like that. But I think that, like Feminists, you have allowed the nutcases in your midst to set the tone and agenda. Until you get rid of the hardcore gayhaters (Thordaddy being a GREAT example) that ignore all reality in favour of their pet perversion, you will continue to be regarded as little more than a Feminist Auxillary, and cannon fodder at that, since they hate your guts.

And that's the core of what i don't understand. Why you choose to act like the worst characterization of a religious bigot is beyond me. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to do much good. You also flatly acknowledge that much of the rhetoric of the MRM is fact based, and solid understanding of reality.

Yet you choose to attack it for being "autonomous" like feminism, as if adherence to a strict ideology over facing reality is something God would encourage. I'm not religious, but even I am knowledgeable to know that the folks at Niscaea were every bit as bigoted and human as we are. The Bible might be the Word of God, but it most certainly isn't all of them, or even a good translation. So how, exactly, is adherence to these words at the expense of reality "Godly"? I mean, didn't Jesus wreck a Temple or two over crap like that?

Anyway, obviosly religion isn't my forte. What I can tell you is this:

You guys have a chance to act like a sort of moral influence on the MRM. Or you can continue to arrogantly declare yourselves better than us, while offering no solutions, only recrimination.

Strange. I go to A Voice For Men, and this topic is sort of being discussed.

By one of my favorite MRAs in fact.

Here she is on Christianity:

"Here’s what I think. I think, at its core, Christianity turns men into spiritual second class citizens.

It’s simple. What human came closest to God and through what biological process did this happen?

Christian women have a spiritual identity rooted in the experience of the female body: pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood.

Christian men have no equivalent spiritual identity rooted in the experience of the male body. The male christian identity revolves around service to their implied spiritual superiors, women; either directly in the form of their wife or indirectly(priests) in spreading the gospel that places women at the moral center of spirituality.

In fact it’s even worse then that.

Why was the Immaculate conception immaculate? Because it didn’t involve a penis. Every Christian woman could be just like the Virgin Mary except for one demonic presence in her life: her husband’s penis and the requirement for intercourse that the demon rod implies.

Not only does that mean that humans are divided into two spiritual camps: those that can experience God through a natural process of their bodies and those whose natural processes damn them to Hell(should they be used in any way but in service of those possessing spiritually superior natural processes; and even so they remain a marker of our fallen state) but it ruthlessly exploits men’s psychological need to differentiate from women.

Instead of allowing men to root their masculine identities in their bodies(as we see with many male dominated pagan faiths), at pain of Eternal Damnation the Church coerces them to root it in ‘sacrifice to the spiritually superior.’ They camouflage this by offering men a token role as ‘head of the household’. And thus forge chains of shame and brittle egotism to bind men to serve women and Christianity itself.

Is it any wonder that religion of female-centric morality/spirituality eventually spawned the disaster we see around us?

Factory, that's the most ridiculous take on Christianity I have ever read.

Here is a quote by Calvin on women taken from his commentary on 1Cor11

"For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. ...

...Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex..."

I have to say that Typhon's appraisal of Christianity is quite muddled.

First, the immaculate conception refers to the conception of *Mary*, not the conception of Jesus Christ. And Mary was very much conceived in the biologically conventional way -- that is via a sperm and egg. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception simply says that Mary was, despite being conceived in the normal way, preserved from original sin (which we inherit from our parents) through an act of grace. This is "needed" from the perspective of Roman Catholic theology so that the humanity of which Christ partook (i.e., Mary's humanity) would not be subject to original sin -- because for it to be so would run counter to one of the main understandings of original sin in Western theology.

The Eastern Christian churches do not have the doctrine of the immaculate conception, nor do (most?) of the Protestant churches. So basing an assessment of Christianity around this idea is quite half-baked.

As for the rest of the post, the main paragon to be imitated in the Christian faith is Christ, not Mary. Yes, it's true that the model involves self-sacrificial service and leadership expressed through self-sacrifice. That is the fundamentally Christian way. But this is not inherently de-masculinizing as is suggested in the post. In fact, in the eyes of Christians this is the true masculinity, and it has nothing, per se, to do with service to women.

What has instead happened is that the church in the West in particular has become over the past several centuries more feminine. This has happened in stages and it has impacted both Catholicism and Protestantism, to differing degrees. I think it has a lot to do with the growing feminization of the culture in general (a trend much longer than the last 50 years, although it has sped up) and this has crept into the church as well, slowly and increasingly. The core of the church and its teachings, however, is not feminine or "un-masculine".

As an aspiring liberated male, you have no "forte." Such icky things are impositional and oppressive. You think man's main battle is in the courtroom? As has been noted all over the place, if man is in court he has assuredly lost something already. So the only relevant advice is to stay out of court and win the battle where it actually is for most men, right on the homefront in realtime. And this is where you will find that trads haven't simply told you the answers, but show you. But because you are of liberated mind, you seek guarantees and since there is no such thing as Factory's guaranteed happiness on the advice of "trads," you run away frustrated.

The easiest was to stay out of a courthouse is to live a traditional lifestyle.

"Nature, I say, does paint them (women) forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office."

(An excerpt from "The First Blast Of Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women")

"You think man's main battle is in the courtroom? As has been noted all over the place, if man is in court he has assuredly lost something already. So the only relevant advice is to stay out of court and win the battle where it actually is for most men, right on the homefront in realtime."

I call bullsh*t on that, in it's entirety. Trads have offered precisely NOTHING to men except a wistful attempt to emulate yesteryear, and hope the wife doesn't pound you into the ground for it.

And if you think I'm all about the courtroom, you're even more blinded by your prejudice than I originally thought. I battle for the hearts and minds, I know the law will only follow that, not the other way around.

But, like a radical feminist who can't resist opening her mouth, you prove my point about trads and bigotry quite nicely. So thank you for that, anyway.

I'm not a particularly religious person myself. I've never seen much point to it. Mind you, I also think people who don't swear in a church, but do it liberally right outside the door, are typical of religious people these days.

I'm an agnostic, and I believe that "Gods House" is literally everywhere you look. I don't believe a building changes a damned thing.

And for that matter, neither does an organization.

It's funny, but I find words of wisdom from the strangest of places. For example, two phrases I like to live by:

"What kind of man is he who does not leave the world a better place"

and

"You will either be a good person, or not. Religion has nothing to do with it."

from a movie.

All I heard in Church the few times I went there?

I'm a sinner. Evil. I must atone before it's too late. Etc.

Pretty much exactly what I hear from Feminists.

I'm really not concerned one way or another if churches die on the vine, or if they thrive. But, like in this thread, most religious people and churches can't even fathom most of the issues facing men, and as they become increasingly feminized will lose ever-more of their 'flock'.

Just like the Media, trads are insane enough to think if they appease women just a little bit more, that relationships and society will right itself.

Catholicism as a religion is TERRIFIED to speak the truth. They've been subject to the same smear campaign men have, but they lack the balls to stand up for themselves and call bigots what they are.

And like I said, I am not religious, but from what I know of Christ, He definitely wouldn't be putting up with this crap.

I think a lot of the state of the church comes from the ministers pitching to their audience. There have been generally more women in churches then men and so to keep their membership strong they've pitched towards women. Most impressive. Also mainstream Christianity in Australia has become dominated by feminised notions of compassion (also socialist notions). So what did we hear from the Anglican church for their Christmas message? Yet another call to be "compassionate" to the refugees.

"Christian women have a spiritual identity rooted in the experience of the female body: pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood."

That only works though if women are focused on motherhood. The moment they take up sex for fun it goes.

If men are associated with "puppy dog's tails" and women with "everything nice" that's in part because the're more rough and tumble than women. Historically at least. A man is capable of far more physical aggression. The arabs, who can't keep a lid on it, have dysfuntional societies.

Jesse_7, prove that traditionalists aren't in divorce court as much as others.

In the US, Roman Catholics get divorced at the same rate as everyone else, except they pay a fee to the RC church and get an "anullment" instead of a "divorce". Catholic women have about 30% of the abortions nationally, according to the Alan Guttmacher institute (which is pro-abortion, so they could be biased).

From my perspective, trad-cons, so-cons, whatever you call yourself are just as likely to be divorced, or to have your children aborted, as any agnostic.

But you can prove me wrong. Just show me the data...

PS: Self control is a "traditionalist" value, right? So keep your curses to yourself. Just because your insulting comment yesterday was deleted, don't assume I didn't see it.

Alte, if you are around, that is a very interesting posting at mala fide. Looking around, I find that Dalrock linked to it.

I believe it was Zed over at Spearhead who pointed out that the declining marriage rate for women was getting more attention than all the "men's rights" conferences ever did. And that fits right in with my growing understanding of female psychology: women ultimately want two things, babies and resources. Traditionally they needed men for both, but feminism has made it trivial for a woman to harvest resources from multiple men, either by divorcing their first husband and shacking up with another one, or by extracting tax monies from government. So all that women really need men for now is sperm.

But the marriage strike threatens that. So that gets attention. Not the higher suicide rate for men in general, and recently divorced men especially. Not the declining material success of ordinary men as AA pushes women higher in income. Not the declining participation in education as feminized schools make boys and young men less and less welcome. None of these matter.